*Snip* Really, I find the whole concept of "Player Skill" pretty laughable. Most pro play in any game genre is almost entirely based on abusing exploits in game mechanics, min/maxing based on the (typically ONE) way to play the game. When I really think about it, all "Skill" is pretty meaningless and laughable, no matter what you're competing in or playing. *Snip*
Say what? So you would say that in sports, athletes just exploit and use almost no skill? Because e-sports is exactly the same. And no, it's all skills. Look up League of Legends, Starcraft, DotA, Call of Duty, Unreal etc. And tell me they 'exploit'. Really.. some people.
A player on Team A gets injured. Who do you think Team B picks on the very next play? A left-handed batter comes up to the plate. Do you pitch a righty or lefty against him? Your opponent twists their ankle in tennis. Do you hit the ball to them from now on, or make them move around the court? Your opponents' sword breaks. Do you throw down your weapon?
I know of very few sports where athletes actually look to pit "their best" against "another's best". 99.9% (fake number) look for what gives them an advantage. If your goal is to win, then you will do so at any cost. If your goal is to compete, then you look to pit your best against another's best. Most (no made up number) people's goal is to win.
Nothing wrong with an advantage. It is the false bravado of "player skills" that make the whole topic laughable. "It takes PLAYER SKILL to find advantages and use them." "It takes PLAYER SKILL to find exploits and use them." "It takes PLAYER SKILL to copy what other have discovered and use it, too." "It takes PLAYER SKILL to set up macros to do the work for you so I can see just how uber my skills are (which are not even being used)."
Comments I wouldn't laugh at would be: "It takes PLAYER SKILL to figure out your class." "It takes PLAYER SKILL to LEARN __________." "It takes PLAYER SKILL to find exploits... AND report them."
The whole point of role playing games is to be someone you are not and have fun. The whole point of first person shooter games is see how well your manual dexterity and reflexes work and have fun.
After all is said and done, I guess I would rather mash 7 or 8 keys instead of 2-4 mouse buttons for my enjoyment.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by headen should sum up player skill for you.
That was a great video! And I agree. No skill trees, no classes, no equipment, no advantages what-so-ever.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Mostly to OP: I personally only have issues with artificial advancement in PvP. Cases where PvP occurs between players where some players have 100 HP but others have 200HP because they're higher level or have some form of Pay or Grind 2 win gear. To me, this is not enjoyable PvP as a winner or a loser.
A system where you build your character from the same "point pool" as another player that grants certain skills/abilities/stats depending on how you set them up is perfectly fine, if not quite possibly the potential system for the greatest PvP ever. I'm all for a system where setting up your character to perfectly compliment your playstyle gives you an edge against someone who can't/doesn't.
Such PvP can be deep, and doesn't require artificial advancement bonuses to be so.
So, in the end the only problem seems to be your pride, that you have arbitrarily decided that gear grind as a character advancement is below you, no?
The same old story "i have less time, but i am convinced i am more skilled than the other people, so it has to be the time and grind and gear".
Mostly to OP: I personally only have issues with artificial advancement in PvP. Cases where PvP occurs between players where some players have 100 HP but others have 200HP because they're higher level or have some form of Pay or Grind 2 win gear. To me, this is not enjoyable PvP as a winner or a loser.
A system where you build your character from the same "point pool" as another player that grants certain skills/abilities/stats depending on how you set them up is perfectly fine, if not quite possibly the potential system for the greatest PvP ever. I'm all for a system where setting up your character to perfectly compliment your playstyle gives you an edge against someone who can't/doesn't.
Such PvP can be deep, and doesn't require artificial advancement bonuses to be so.
So, in the end the only problem seems to be your pride, that you have arbitrarily decided that gear grind as a character advancement is below you, no?
The same old story "i have less time, but i am convinced i am more skilled than the other people, so it has to be the time and grind and gear".
that makes about as much sense as saying, "I have more time, but I am convinced that I am less skilled than the other people..." When did I say "I was more skilled", anyway?
The point is, you'll never really know whether you're actually skilled at the game, since skill is much less relevent to the outcome.
I pride myself in being good at playing a game and also being good at min/maxing my character. I've experienced a lot of what you're saying about one player being so good that no else has fun except the one who is winning. I actually have to make a conscious decision to play slightly worse or use a bad build or just not use a particular winning tactic in a match because I want to provide myself with a challenge. I hate winning all the time because it gets boring and I only bring out the big guns when I feel like I'm being properly challenged (although sometimes I just want to wreck a few heads just because it's that kind of day).
So yea, I feel your pain even though I'm part of the group that might be causing it. I do like being good at playing games though, it enables me to feel like I can actually control whether I win or not, which isn't always true.
Mostly to OP: I personally only have issues with artificial advancement in PvP. Cases where PvP occurs between players where some players have 100 HP but others have 200HP because they're higher level or have some form of Pay or Grind 2 win gear. To me, this is not enjoyable PvP as a winner or a loser.
A system where you build your character from the same "point pool" as another player that grants certain skills/abilities/stats depending on how you set them up is perfectly fine, if not quite possibly the potential system for the greatest PvP ever. I'm all for a system where setting up your character to perfectly compliment your playstyle gives you an edge against someone who can't/doesn't.
Such PvP can be deep, and doesn't require artificial advancement bonuses to be so.
So, in the end the only problem seems to be your pride, that you have arbitrarily decided that gear grind as a character advancement is below you, no?
The same old story "i have less time, but i am convinced i am more skilled than the other people, so it has to be the time and grind and gear".
that makes about as much sense as saying, "I have more time, but I am convinced that I am less skilled than the other people..."
The point is, you'll never really know whether you're actually skilled at the game, since skill is much less relevent to the outcome.
And where, to be a bit sarcastic, is written that it is a bad thing? Gear is something that can be aquired with very few outside influences, connection speed, reflexes and fast thinking is not.
So, in the end the only problem seems to be your pride, that you have arbitrarily decided that gear grind as a character advancement is below you, no?
The same old story "i have less time, but i am convinced i am more skilled than the other people, so it has to be the time and grind and gear".
that makes about as much sense as saying, "I have more time, but I am convinced that I am less skilled than the other people..."
The point is, you'll never really know whether you're actually skilled at the game, since skill is much less relevent to the outcome.
And where, to be a bit sarcastic, is written that it is a bad thing? Gear is something that can be aquired with very few outside influences, connection speed, reflexes and fast thinking is not.
Does it have to be written somewhere? And since when are your own personal skills (reflexes, fast thinking) an outside influence?
I pride myself in being good at playing a game and also being good at min/maxing my character. I've experienced a lot of what you're saying about one player being so good that no else has fun except the one who is winning. I actually have to make a conscious decision to play slightly worse or use a bad build or just not use a particular winning tactic in a match because I want to provide myself with a challenge. I hate winning all the time because it gets boring and I only bring out the big guns when I feel like I'm being properly challenged (although sometimes I just want to wreck a few heads just because it's that kind of day).
So yea, I feel your pain even though I'm part of the group that might be causing it. I do like being good at playing games though, it enables me to feel like I can actually control whether I win or not, which isn't always true.
I've been on both sides of the issue.
I like playing football (soccer) but I am not really that good a player. When I was a kid this did not matter much to me because I would just play casually with the neighbourhood kids and the skill level was all over the place so things balanced out. SOme of my friends were quite good and decided to train properly. By the end of highschool they were playing at the city league level and were looking at going semi-pro. At that point playing against them was not as much fun anymore since they were way too good for us.
On the other side of the coin, I used to be a tournament Magic: The Gathering player. From time to time, I would be paired against a young kid who was at his first tourney. I outclassed him by a mile and I tried to be as nice as possible abotu the fact that I was about to crush him. I was not gonna throw the game but I did not want him to hate the experience either.
There is usually a sweet point where it comes to competition. If your opponents are too good, you will be defeated without learning much useful. If your opponents are too weak, you will beat the too easily and not learn anything new (in fact you might develop some bad habits)
I'm a competitive player and I don't like to be on the receiving or the giving end of a steamroll. It is not fun for either. I push myself because I love the challenge and I enjoy learning new stuff and improving my skill. If I'm not challenged, if I'm not learning new stuff, I'm not enjoying the game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
SKILLED PLAYER would win in an even matchup, but not only is he a better player but he understands the metagame better, knows how to win, and knows the benefits of potions, items, gear, and levels.
The problem is that's not always the reality.
Like my experience with Darkfalll PVP:
Player obviously moving towards me to gank.
I hit him ~20 times in melee, taking him to 90% of his health (ie barely scratching him.)
He finally hits me. 3 times. Killing me.
Often, the player in better gear is also genuinely more skilled. But not always. And those times when they're not are when you get a ton of player frustration, because their opponent won via some utterly shallow mechanic (like time investment.)
But like I said in my first post, this doesn't just apply to PVP. The sensation that a game is deep and rewarding of skill is a key element in a good game. When there's no learning or mastery in a game, we call that shallow and tend to not stick with those games very long (Monopoly, Tic-Tac-Toe, The Game of Life)
That's why for MMORPGs' target demographic, rewarding skill is important. You can still offer other styles of gameplay to suit players' other desires (mob farming is often a zen-like relaxation activity like FarmVille is for older women, and I already mentioned socializing and player expression as other player desires), but with MMORPGs' core demographic you definitely need to engage them with some deeper gameplay. Shallow no-skill gameplay isn't enough to do well in this genre.
Oh and also there's no "self-defined" aspect to player skill. If a game is decided purely by skill and Player A wins, Player A is more skilled. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not he considers himself more skilled, he just is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
SKILLED PLAYER would win in an even matchup, but not only is he a better player but he understands the metagame better, knows how to win, and knows the benefits of potions, items, gear, and levels.
The problem is that's not always the reality.
Like my experience with Darkfalll PVP:
Player obviously moving towards me to gank.
I hit him ~20 times in melee, taking him to 90% of his health (ie barely scratching him.)
He finally hits me. 3 times. Killing me.
Often, the player in better gear is also genuinely more skilled. But not always. And those times when they're not are when you get a ton of player frustration, because their opponent won via some utterly shallow mechanic (like time investment.)
But like I said in my first post, this doesn't just apply to PVP. The sensation that a game is deep and rewarding of skill is a key element in a good game. When there's no learning or mastery in a game, we call that shallow and tend to not stick with those games very long (Monopoly, Tic-Tac-Toe, The Game of Life)
That's why for MMORPGs' target demographic, rewarding skill is important. You can still offer other styles of gameplay to suit players' other desires (mob farming is often a zen-like relaxation activity like FarmVille is for older women, and I already mentioned socializing and player expression as other player desires), but with MMORPGs' core demographic you definitely need to engage them with some deeper gameplay. Shallow no-skill gameplay isn't enough to do well in this genre.
Oh and also there's no "self-defined" aspect to player skill. If a game is decided purely by skill and Player A wins, Player A is more skilled. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not he considers himself more skilled, he just is.
Or maybe there are other reasons that people quit playing boardgames. How many people always get a cat's game in Tic Tac Toe passed age 12? The number is shockingly smaller than 100% which is where it should be at.
In any case your absolute disregard for cultural factors in the choice of games is shockingly sloppy. The reason people play basketball instead of monopoly is that its a case of cool vs lame. That's the same reason that sports players get millions and starcraft and chess players are known only by a few intellectual elitists. In fact chess is less well known that starcraft and yet chess is a far deeper game.
In any case your absolute disregard for cultural factors in the choice of games is shockingly sloppy. The reason people play basketball instead of monopoly is that its a case of cool vs lame. That's the same reason that sports players get millions and starcraft and chess players are known only by a few intellectual elitists. In fact chess is less well known that starcraft and yet chess is a far deeper game.
The reasons for cultural popularity in this case are familiarity (sports have been around a while) and being physical (physical forms of play tend to be more intuitive, accessible, and dynamic.)
If you want to argue that MMORPGs would benefit from those traits, that's great and I'd agree.
But hopefully you understand how that's a completely separate conversation from whether MMORPGs should reward skill or not. So it's not "sloppy". It's on-topic.
And the fact remains that people do not play Tic-Tac-Toe long specifically because it's a shallow game. Their ability to have 100% draws is beside the point.
I'm out of practice in any number of shallow games on account of their not being worth my time to keep in practice. I could probably get 100% draws in Tic-Tac-Toe, but there are other slightly deeper games like Checkers where I'm not going to play optimally. Doesn't change the fact that I strongly prefer deeper games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I always thought it was funny when people almost raged when talking about "Player Skill" as if people incapable of faster mouse clicks or accurate reaction FPS skills are inferior to someone with a talent for theory-crafting or min/maxing their character specialization, balancing their budget / earning gold for their item accumulation, or simply someone who spends more time in the game than others.
Typically this idea that "Player Skill" is solely derived from FPS skillz br0 came across my mind when thinking of the forums just before Darkfall's initial release, people bashing "carebears", and the constant "bro" crowd which states that ALL mmorpgs would be 100x better with FPS aiming and untargeted spell casts like a FPS game.
Really, I find the whole concept of "Player Skill" pretty laughable. Most pro play in any game genre is almost entirely based on abusing exploits in game mechanics, min/maxing based on the (typically ONE) way to play the game. When I really think about it, all "Skill" is pretty meaningless and laughable, no matter what you're competing in or playing.
Even in real life, intelligence makes one man no more valuable a human than the next. Although the world seems to be impressed by people who can jump higher, run faster, or solve complex math problems rapidly, those people are no more important (arguably less) than many of the "lesser" capable grunts working jobs which are requirements for what society considers "modern living" such as electricians, chinese factory workers, farmers, and plumbers.
I created this thread initially from reading another thread where someone (of many I've seen before) upset that time invested in MMORPG's is more important than other forms of skill. Although I severely dislike games which make players more powerful based solely on their time (as opposed to decisions, talents in other areas, etc.) if I were not a quick reaction player with a lot of gaming experience across all genres, I'd probably think very positively of time progression. After all, why is it fair that one man rofl-stomp others in PvP simply because their brain works differently than yours? That's hardly fun or entertaining. You could however argue the opposite-- why should they beat me when they are clearly inferior players? To each his own, and honestly I'd love to see games which promote a little bit of everything, which I think is what the mainstream has done.
WoW PvP is a great example of this fine tuned balance, IMO. In WoW, a player can be the best solely by time invested (level, gameplay experience), by reaction and FPS skills (such as the difference between those who click to cast and those who WASD or use a gamepad or gaming mouse or complex macros), by simply being the overpowered class (especially in low levels, some classes are rofl-stompingly ridiculously unbalanced), or by getting the right gear or having the right social connections to achieve all of the above.
My biggest problem though, are the min-maxers who exploit EVERYTHING they can for easy wins, despite it taking a large amount of the fun (challenge) out of the game. Those who not only are great players with tons of gaming experience, but also stack this high advantage WITH overpowered classes, AND heavy time investment, MULTIPLIED by gear perfection, twinking, etc.
It is one thing to have tons of different ways to be great at a game. It is entirely another to stack every single advantage on top of one another becoming an overwhelmingly powerful force that can singlehandedly change the battlefield and make the experience of the other 1-19 players an absolutely boring, frustrating, or needlessly unchallenging waste of their time.
WIth this said, WoW is also a great example of a system where someone obsessed with winning at all costs against opponents who provide 0 challenge can rofl-stomp their way to ruining everyone else's fun.
This complaint I am making reminds me of a FPS game I was playing. The server was full, and everyone would normally have a blast but this 1 person was so good, so experienced, with so much a better score than everyone else (they would kill others the moment they'd appear) that the entire server, including his own team, voting to kick him and succeeded. I was the one who initiated the vote. Why? Because out of the 12 people playing, only 1 was having fun while the rest of the 11 were playing on an entirely lower level. This 1 player literally was "so good" he ruined the game for everyone else. His team never got to kill anyone or even fight, because he would kill everyone all across the map. The enemy wouldnt even get to play, as they'd die the moment BEFORE he'd even appear on screen. The moment this player was kicked, against his wishes, everyone started having a blast, providing each other with very challenging gameplay. Even though there were several clear bad players and several clear good ones, the differentiation was not as massive anymore, and even the bad players could have fun enough.
Finally, I'd just like to add that even though I am a huge nerd, I still think people who "pro play" any video game are a laughing stock and a shame on the gaming scene solely because they are exploiting game mechanics and programming balance instead of providing themselves with a form of entertainment focused on having fun as opposed to competition. Although it is fun for them (the only reason I dont think ill of them or suggest NOT having said tournament) I still think it is all quite the joke.
Of course, this is also coming from the same person who thinks those who worship celebrities and make sport players their personal heroes are what I would call the "bottom of the gene pool". No offense, but LOL @ being payed millions and become worshiped for being able to run really fast or catch a ball better than other people. Although I am probably an "elitist" I think that REAL heroes deserve the credit and self-obsessed people who do nothing for society but "pro play" do more harm than good. I mean, it's not like the best teachers are payed millions of dollars and drafted to "pro teach" or anything. Right? Right? It's not like public education suffers due to low pay and atheltic scholarships often trump any form of intellectual persuit. Right? Right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You mad bro?
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
What determines "Player Skill" is perspective, is a joke, is laughable. Someone who is stronger than other people is suddenly more skilled than someone with experience playing 1 specific video game alot and abusing mechanics with some talent involved? (The talent of abusing those mechanics, of course).
Athletes do not exploit and use "no skill" because you cannot alter physics, which make up the majority of the game rules. You can, however, exploit the hell out of computer program code because it DOES have specific well defined rules. They also do not use "no skill" and exploit when they play sports or olympic feats simply because "Player Skill" isn't real. It's simply a concept which is laughable at best.
Throw a pro football player in a battlefield, and soon his "player skill" is nothing compared to the veterans alongside him.
Throw a Starcraft 2 champion in a bakery and ask him to make an amazing tasting pie.
Ask a Counter Strike champion to play Call of Duty and do just as good.
Tell a League of Legends player to play a low ELO gimped champion and win entirely because of "player skill".
Player Skill is irrelevant when those units in a video game mathematically calculate a loss before gameplay occurs. And to be honest, if Pro Play in League of Legends is almost entirely about "denying" a dragon or "getting lucky on a gank" and a few key events determine the winner, it's obvious that the goal is about exploiting Gold Accumulation far more than it is about "Player Skill" and that "Player Skill" can more specifically be defined as "Deny Skill" far more than it would be considered the ability to accurately, quickly, and intelligent play a character in a fight.
You're the best of the best of the best? I'm sorry, but you have a knife. I'm holding a gun. Game over.
The problem with your analysis is that both venues have rules and those rules are being enforced by fallible people/rules. A person in a BBall game can travel or double dribble without the rule-keeper noticing and get away with it much in the same way someone exploits a bit of malformed code or a hole in the rule-keeping code.
If you remove all illegal activities, you can see a difference between skill levels in both reaction time and critical thinking. A basketball player may have the best physique but without situational awareness he’s never going to see court-time.
Think of professional basketball players as the elite gamers instead of just the general player. The people playing in the NBA are a cut far above the general population in physique, drive and basketball situational awareness much like the people with pr0-skillz in a game are a cut above the general gamer.
While I agree with the literal meaning of your statement, “Player Skill is irrelevant when those units in a video game mathematically calculate a loss before gameplay occurs” it isn’t applicable to overall gaming mechanics. You’re trying to dilute everything down into a single variable but it doesn’t work. MMO’s may have simplistic rules, ie. {x skill} does {y damage}, it’s still up to when that player decides to activate {x skill} on {z player} at {t time} which, most people know, the right combination of those usually makes for a win or a loss.
Additionally, when you say, “if Pro Play in League of Legends is almost entirely about "denying" a dragon or "getting lucky on a gank" and a few key events determine the winner, it's obvious that the goal is about exploiting Gold Accumulation far more than it is about "Player Skill" and that "Player Skill" can more specifically be defined as "Deny Skill" far more than it would be considered the ability to accurately, quickly, and intelligent play a character in a fight” is still an example of one strategy countering another strategy. We see this all the time in pro-sports. Take, for instance, force-walking a batter in baseball because he’s a big hitter. The pitcher is specifically denying the chance for that batter to hit a homerun.
Gaming is more than just rock>paper>scissors. Yes, the r>p>s does affect the outcome but it doesn’t predict it and most of us have seen how a paper can beat a scissor if paper has better reaction time, situational awareness and better knowledge of the game and skills for each character class.
And where, to be a bit sarcastic, is written that it is a bad thing? Gear is something that can be aquired with very few outside influences, connection speed, reflexes and fast thinking is not.
Does it have to be written somewhere? And since when are your own personal skills (reflexes, fast thinking) an outside influence?
Since you are mentioning it like it is obviously a bad thing, and i disagree, preferably yes
And while i never mentioned that they are a outside influence, since when are you downloading yourself into a mmo like matrix?
Comments
A left-handed batter comes up to the plate. Do you pitch a righty or lefty against him?
Your opponent twists their ankle in tennis. Do you hit the ball to them from now on, or make them move around the court?
Your opponents' sword breaks. Do you throw down your weapon?
I know of very few sports where athletes actually look to pit "their best" against "another's best". 99.9% (fake number) look for what gives them an advantage. If your goal is to win, then you will do so at any cost. If your goal is to compete, then you look to pit your best against another's best. Most (no made up number) people's goal is to win.
Nothing wrong with an advantage. It is the false bravado of "player skills" that make the whole topic laughable.
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to find advantages and use them."
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to find exploits and use them."
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to copy what other have discovered and use it, too."
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to set up macros to do the work for you so I can see just how uber my skills are (which are not even being used)."
Comments I wouldn't laugh at would be:
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to figure out your class."
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to LEARN __________."
"It takes PLAYER SKILL to find exploits... AND report them."
The whole point of role playing games is to be someone you are not and have fun. The whole point of first person shooter games is see how well your manual dexterity and reflexes work and have fun.
After all is said and done, I guess I would rather mash 7 or 8 keys instead of 2-4 mouse buttons for my enjoyment.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So, in the end the only problem seems to be your pride, that you have arbitrarily decided that gear grind as a character advancement is below you, no?
The same old story "i have less time, but i am convinced i am more skilled than the other people, so it has to be the time and grind and gear".
Flame on!
Not sure what the intention for making this threat was, have a big feeling it,s just to aggravate tho.
I dont get how you can say that skill does not exist, if it didnt, there wouldnt be a word for it.
SKILL = Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience.
So anything you learn that gives you an edge over another player can be counted as player skill.
I would say to be able to min/max is a skill in itself.
I mean skill can be anything from reaction time to tactical knowhow,given enough time any skill can be trained/learned.
Now if you are talking about some mystic jedie force or something , then i agree with you, it does not exist.
I pride myself in being good at playing a game and also being good at min/maxing my character. I've experienced a lot of what you're saying about one player being so good that no else has fun except the one who is winning. I actually have to make a conscious decision to play slightly worse or use a bad build or just not use a particular winning tactic in a match because I want to provide myself with a challenge. I hate winning all the time because it gets boring and I only bring out the big guns when I feel like I'm being properly challenged (although sometimes I just want to wreck a few heads just because it's that kind of day).
So yea, I feel your pain even though I'm part of the group that might be causing it. I do like being good at playing games though, it enables me to feel like I can actually control whether I win or not, which isn't always true.
This is not a game.
And where, to be a bit sarcastic, is written that it is a bad thing? Gear is something that can be aquired with very few outside influences, connection speed, reflexes and fast thinking is not.
Flame on!
I've been on both sides of the issue.
I like playing football (soccer) but I am not really that good a player. When I was a kid this did not matter much to me because I would just play casually with the neighbourhood kids and the skill level was all over the place so things balanced out. SOme of my friends were quite good and decided to train properly. By the end of highschool they were playing at the city league level and were looking at going semi-pro. At that point playing against them was not as much fun anymore since they were way too good for us.
On the other side of the coin, I used to be a tournament Magic: The Gathering player. From time to time, I would be paired against a young kid who was at his first tourney. I outclassed him by a mile and I tried to be as nice as possible abotu the fact that I was about to crush him. I was not gonna throw the game but I did not want him to hate the experience either.
There is usually a sweet point where it comes to competition. If your opponents are too good, you will be defeated without learning much useful. If your opponents are too weak, you will beat the too easily and not learn anything new (in fact you might develop some bad habits)
I'm a competitive player and I don't like to be on the receiving or the giving end of a steamroll. It is not fun for either. I push myself because I love the challenge and I enjoy learning new stuff and improving my skill. If I'm not challenged, if I'm not learning new stuff, I'm not enjoying the game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The problem is that's not always the reality.
Like my experience with Darkfalll PVP:
Player obviously moving towards me to gank.
I hit him ~20 times in melee, taking him to 90% of his health (ie barely scratching him.)
He finally hits me. 3 times. Killing me.
Often, the player in better gear is also genuinely more skilled. But not always. And those times when they're not are when you get a ton of player frustration, because their opponent won via some utterly shallow mechanic (like time investment.)
But like I said in my first post, this doesn't just apply to PVP. The sensation that a game is deep and rewarding of skill is a key element in a good game. When there's no learning or mastery in a game, we call that shallow and tend to not stick with those games very long (Monopoly, Tic-Tac-Toe, The Game of Life)
That's why for MMORPGs' target demographic, rewarding skill is important. You can still offer other styles of gameplay to suit players' other desires (mob farming is often a zen-like relaxation activity like FarmVille is for older women, and I already mentioned socializing and player expression as other player desires), but with MMORPGs' core demographic you definitely need to engage them with some deeper gameplay. Shallow no-skill gameplay isn't enough to do well in this genre.
Oh and also there's no "self-defined" aspect to player skill. If a game is decided purely by skill and Player A wins, Player A is more skilled. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not he considers himself more skilled, he just is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Or maybe there are other reasons that people quit playing boardgames. How many people always get a cat's game in Tic Tac Toe passed age 12? The number is shockingly smaller than 100% which is where it should be at.
In any case your absolute disregard for cultural factors in the choice of games is shockingly sloppy. The reason people play basketball instead of monopoly is that its a case of cool vs lame. That's the same reason that sports players get millions and starcraft and chess players are known only by a few intellectual elitists. In fact chess is less well known that starcraft and yet chess is a far deeper game.
The reasons for cultural popularity in this case are familiarity (sports have been around a while) and being physical (physical forms of play tend to be more intuitive, accessible, and dynamic.)
If you want to argue that MMORPGs would benefit from those traits, that's great and I'd agree.
But hopefully you understand how that's a completely separate conversation from whether MMORPGs should reward skill or not. So it's not "sloppy". It's on-topic.
And the fact remains that people do not play Tic-Tac-Toe long specifically because it's a shallow game. Their ability to have 100% draws is beside the point.
I'm out of practice in any number of shallow games on account of their not being worth my time to keep in practice. I could probably get 100% draws in Tic-Tac-Toe, but there are other slightly deeper games like Checkers where I'm not going to play optimally. Doesn't change the fact that I strongly prefer deeper games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You mad bro?
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
OP is jealous he has no skill, so he bullshits his way to feeling better about himself. Thanks for the post OP.
The problem with your analysis is that both venues have rules and those rules are being enforced by fallible people/rules. A person in a BBall game can travel or double dribble without the rule-keeper noticing and get away with it much in the same way someone exploits a bit of malformed code or a hole in the rule-keeping code.
If you remove all illegal activities, you can see a difference between skill levels in both reaction time and critical thinking. A basketball player may have the best physique but without situational awareness he’s never going to see court-time.
Think of professional basketball players as the elite gamers instead of just the general player. The people playing in the NBA are a cut far above the general population in physique, drive and basketball situational awareness much like the people with pr0-skillz in a game are a cut above the general gamer.
While I agree with the literal meaning of your statement, “Player Skill is irrelevant when those units in a video game mathematically calculate a loss before gameplay occurs” it isn’t applicable to overall gaming mechanics. You’re trying to dilute everything down into a single variable but it doesn’t work. MMO’s may have simplistic rules, ie. {x skill} does {y damage}, it’s still up to when that player decides to activate {x skill} on {z player} at {t time} which, most people know, the right combination of those usually makes for a win or a loss.
Additionally, when you say, “if Pro Play in League of Legends is almost entirely about "denying" a dragon or "getting lucky on a gank" and a few key events determine the winner, it's obvious that the goal is about exploiting Gold Accumulation far more than it is about "Player Skill" and that "Player Skill" can more specifically be defined as "Deny Skill" far more than it would be considered the ability to accurately, quickly, and intelligent play a character in a fight” is still an example of one strategy countering another strategy. We see this all the time in pro-sports. Take, for instance, force-walking a batter in baseball because he’s a big hitter. The pitcher is specifically denying the chance for that batter to hit a homerun.
Gaming is more than just rock>paper>scissors. Yes, the r>p>s does affect the outcome but it doesn’t predict it and most of us have seen how a paper can beat a scissor if paper has better reaction time, situational awareness and better knowledge of the game and skills for each character class.
Since you are mentioning it like it is obviously a bad thing, and i disagree, preferably yes
And while i never mentioned that they are a outside influence, since when are you downloading yourself into a mmo like matrix?
Flame on!
Hey OP... Try and tell Nada & Moon that player skill is a myth.... LOL
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}