I wonder if competitive people will find ridiculous methods for winning

[flc]

oh hey it's this discussion

alright, so let's just get something clear: fun and competition are not mutually exclusive. I personally get a great deal of enjoyment out of breaking a game's mechanics right down to the fundamentals and figuring out the best way to play. I'd say that I don't enjoy playing games casually but I think that's more to do with the lack of challenge in casual play than anything else.

the point is that if one person exists who enjoys the game the more competitive it is, then surely others exist as well. perhaps we're a minority, but so too are the people who scrub it up and refuse to use comp tech against comp players. if you want to play casual, play casual; I'm sure that once the matchmaking settles down the only people in the average casual player's skill bracket will either not know what they're doing with techs (so you can just beat them) or they'll also not use said techs.

but that's not even the key thing here. tech skill in smash meant wrestling with analogue shoulder buttons and an imprecise stick, as well as often using multiple inputs for a single action. tech skill in most shooters involves learning effective movement (which in this game looks mechanically straightforward and you don't even necessarily have to learn it judging by how weak these techs look) and knowing how to aim. the difference is enormous when it comes to learning; you don't spend hours in the labs, you spend a few minutes learning some basic tech and the rest is on your ability to adapt.

as for the people on the other end of the spectrum: more tech isn't always a good thing. tech changes the way the game plays in a way that the devs would not have balanced for, at which point it comes down to luck whether we're left with a fun game or a game that's one-dimensional and boring. note that I'm not saying we shouldn't try and discover tech, just that the more tech exists and the more it changes the game, the more deviation there is in how the game's balanced. if there were some way to instantly charge chargers or maintain a charge in ink, then a key balancing mechanic disappears. maybe it offsets some other tech, maybe it doesn't, and that's the point.

anyway I'm not gonna say too much more beyond this post (mainly because I've been seeing the same arguments for 14 years and they aren't getting any less stale) but I feel like people who have only been exposed to melee (which is a massive outlier in terms of comp tech for its very high amount of inputs per action) might not realise just how over the top the tech in that game is compared to basically every other game under the sun

 

[WydrA]

oh hey it's this discussion

alright, so let's just get something clear: fun and competition are not mutually exclusive. I personally get a great deal of enjoyment out of breaking a game's mechanics right down to the fundamentals and figuring out the best way to play. I'd say that I don't enjoy playing games casually but I think that's more to do with the lack of challenge in casual play than anything else.

the point is that if one person exists who enjoys the game the more competitive it is, then surely others exist as well. perhaps we're a minority, but so too are the people who scrub it up and refuse to use comp tech against comp players. if you want to play casual, play casual; I'm sure that once the matchmaking settles down the only people in the average casual player's skill bracket will either not know what they're doing with techs (so you can just beat them) or they'll also not use said techs.

but that's not even the key thing here. tech skill in smash meant wrestling with analogue shoulder buttons and an imprecise stick, as well as often using multiple inputs for a single action. tech skill in most shooters involves learning effective movement (which in this game looks mechanically straightforward and you don't even necessarily have to learn it judging by how weak these techs look) and knowing how to aim. the difference is enormous when it comes to learning; you don't spend hours in the labs, you spend a few minutes learning some basic tech and the rest is on your ability to adapt.

as for the people on the other end of the spectrum: more tech isn't always a good thing. tech changes the way the game plays in a way that the devs would not have balanced for, at which point it comes down to luck whether we're left with a fun game or a game that's one-dimensional and boring. note that I'm not saying we shouldn't try and discover tech, just that the more tech exists and the more it changes the game, the more deviation there is in how the game's balanced. if there were some way to instantly charge chargers or maintain a charge in ink, then a key balancing mechanic disappears. maybe it offsets some other tech, maybe it doesn't, and that's the point.

anyway I'm not gonna say too much more beyond this post (mainly because I've been seeing the same arguments for 14 years and they aren't getting any less stale) but I feel like people who have only been exposed to melee (which is a massive outlier in terms of comp tech for its very high amount of inputs per action) might not realise just how over the top the tech in that game is compared to basically every other game under the sun

Sort of going off the fact that more tech isn't necessarily possible, and how complicated it is or is not: Learning tech isn't even really half the battle. You can learn all the tech you want. The harder part is knowing, having the presence of mind to use it when it needs to be used. If you can't do that, you may as well not have learned the tech. That part comes from just playing other people.
This is kind of why people like tech so much. Not just because I can say I practiced for hours, or that I did 7 inputs in a second to kill that guy, but because they let you execute what you want to be able to execute more precisely and efficiently.
I could go on about how I think competitive gaming is like speaking a language and tech is a part of speech, but then this would turn into me rambling, and no one wants that.

 

[Draayder]

oh hey it's this discussion

alright, so let's just get something clear: fun and competition are not mutually exclusive. I personally get a great deal of enjoyment out of breaking a game's mechanics right down to the fundamentals and figuring out the best way to play. I'd say that I don't enjoy playing games casually but I think that's more to do with the lack of challenge in casual play than anything else.

the point is that if one person exists who enjoys the game the more competitive it is, then surely others exist as well. perhaps we're a minority, but so too are the people who scrub it up and refuse to use comp tech against comp players. if you want to play casual, play casual; I'm sure that once the matchmaking settles down the only people in the average casual player's skill bracket will either not know what they're doing with techs (so you can just beat them) or they'll also not use said techs.

but that's not even the key thing here. tech skill in smash meant wrestling with analogue shoulder buttons and an imprecise stick, as well as often using multiple inputs for a single action. tech skill in most shooters involves learning effective movement (which in this game looks mechanically straightforward and you don't even necessarily have to learn it judging by how weak these techs look) and knowing how to aim. the difference is enormous when it comes to learning; you don't spend hours in the labs, you spend a few minutes learning some basic tech and the rest is on your ability to adapt.

as for the people on the other end of the spectrum: more tech isn't always a good thing. tech changes the way the game plays in a way that the devs would not have balanced for, at which point it comes down to luck whether we're left with a fun game or a game that's one-dimensional and boring. note that I'm not saying we shouldn't try and discover tech, just that the more tech exists and the more it changes the game, the more deviation there is in how the game's balanced. if there were some way to instantly charge chargers or maintain a charge in ink, then a key balancing mechanic disappears. maybe it offsets some other tech, maybe it doesn't, and that's the point.

anyway I'm not gonna say too much more beyond this post (mainly because I've been seeing the same arguments for 14 years and they aren't getting any less stale) but I feel like people who have only been exposed to melee (which is a massive outlier in terms of comp tech for its very high amount of inputs per action) might not realise just how over the top the tech in that game is compared to basically every other game under the sun

I agree fully with this and I am 100% hoping that the techs remain reasonable like they have been so far. A lot of the things, like splatterhopping, are pretty intuitive, offer decent rewards, and aren't particularly difficult to do, which is very nice to see.

 

[WydrA]

\

I agree fully with this and I am 100% hoping that the techs remain reasonable like they have been so far. A lot of the things, like splatterhopping, are pretty intuitive, offer decent rewards, and aren't particularly difficult to do, which is very nice to see.

What would be an unreasonable tech?

 

[ThatsSo]

\

What would be an unreasonable tech?

If you can type the konami code in 3 frames you get a real gun that doesn't let people respawn

 

[Draayder]

\

What would be an unreasonable tech?

imo either something that requires a lot of precise inputs for not that much of a reward or something that basically breaks the game regardless of how difficult it is. Someone brought up earlier a tech that'd let you keep your splat charger charge while swimming in ink, which could be very broken if it isn't intended (of course stuff like that will likely just get patched out).

Just as a random example for the input heavy side, something like if you flick the left stick back and forth really fast while also mashing the jump button and holding down on the right stick letting you jump a little higher or something. Give that kind of strict timing but enough of a jump height advantage that it's needed at a high level and you've found yourself a pretty unneeded barrier to entry, even if it's not game breaking.

If you can type the konami code in 3 frames you get a real gun that doesn't let people respawn

That works too lol.

 

[WydrA]

imo either something that requires a lot of precise inputs for not that much of a reward or something that basically breaks the game regardless of how difficult it is. Someone brought up earlier a tech that'd let you keep your splat charger charge while swimming in ink, which could be very broken if it isn't intended (of course stuff like that will likely just get patched out).

Just as a random example for the input heavy side, something like if you flick the left stick back and forth really fast while also mashing the jump button and holding down on the right stick letting you jump a little higher or something. Give that kind of strict timing but enough of a jump height advantage that it's needed at a high level and you've found yourself a pretty unneeded barrier to entry, even if it's not game breaking.



That works too lol.

I understand why the incredibly powerful and simple techs could be a problem, but what's wrong with techs that are hard to perform and reasonable with their reward?

 

[Sheikashii]

That's strange. Because to the relevant majority finding new techniques is fun. And the fun random factor makes it like rolling dice than trying to win with what you can do. I personally can't wait for the new ways to move that the creators didn't add in so the game will have legs.

Anything without techniques would be just as boring. For example basketball without cool ways to trick players when trying to steal the ball from you would make it just running. And the fun aspect is random (like items in smash and stuff) so in fun basketball when someone shoots, the net gets bigger sometimes and smaller sometimes but the people in the audience has to throw it for you. You cant really play the game with skill or whatever. Both can be fun for different reasons

 

[Draayder]

I understand why the incredibly powerful and simple techs could be a problem, but what's wrong with techs that are hard to perform and reasonable with their reward?

Honestly it ends up going the route that melee did, where only a tiny fraction of people can even hope to compete at a truly competitive level. Melee's bogged down with really input heavy techs like l-canceling, wave dashing, dash dancing, etc, and while none of these on their own are particularly strong (l-canceling is arguable tho) the sheer number of inputs gets ridiculous for most players. It stops players who might be really good with the mental aspect (reading their opponent, tactical positioning, etc) from being able to compete if they just don't quite have the finger speed.

If the rewards don't make enough of a difference competitively and it's mostly a 'hey look at this cool thing I can do with this ridiculous input' then there isn't really a problem, or if the difficulty is just 'well it's kind of hard to time right' then it's probably fine too. It's mostly the 'you have 2 frames to input this and you are expected to do this consistently and regularly through the game' where things gets a bit gate keeper-y.

That's my 2 cents at least.

 

[ThatsSo]

I understand why the incredibly powerful and simple techs could be a problem, but what's wrong with techs that are hard to perform and reasonable with their reward?

I know I wasn't part of this discussion, but my two cents.
Techs aren't a bad thing, but it's at least a little disappointing when something that should be seen an option to players becomes limited by their button pressing skill as opposed to what they decide to do with it. Taking Smash for example, I think the game would in general be more fun and fast if L canceling was automatic, as opposed to requiring a button press (As it is in the flash game "Super Smash Flash"). It would allow more people to get into competitive play, make casual players have more quick and fun game play, and wouldn't really have any effect on the established competitive players seeing as it doesn't really do anything to the skill ceiling. Speaking personally, as a smash fan, I'm horrible with quick button presses. In general I have slow reaction times, so even though my fundamentals are pretty good, I'm not really capible of hitting a button (Or several) within milliseconds. I think in the grand scheme of things, it's not a good mindset that players should be benefited like this because they can hit buttons really quickly, as opposed to their actual skill and decision making in the game play. Part of the reason I'm really interested in Splatoon is the fact it benefits smart choices more so than quick reaction times, as opposed to most shooters.
That being said, I can't imagine any kind of tech that requires quick button presses happening in Splatoon, I'm just speaking in hypothetical.

 

[Gsnap]

Honestly it ends up going the route that melee did, where only a tiny fraction of people can even hope to compete at a truly competitive level. Melee's bogged down with really input heavy techs like l-canceling, wave dashing, dash dancing, etc, and while none of these on their own are particularly strong (l-canceling is arguable tho) the sheer number of inputs gets ridiculous for most players. It stops players who might be really good with the mental aspect (reading their opponent, tactical positioning, etc) from being able to compete if they just don't quite have the finger speed.

If the rewards don't make enough of a difference competitively and it's mostly a 'hey look at this cool thing I can do with this ridiculous input' then there isn't really a problem, or if the difficulty is just 'well it's kind of hard to time right' then it's probably fine too. It's mostly the 'you have 2 frames to input this and you are expected to do this consistently and regularly through the game' where things gets a bit gate keeper-y.

That's my 2 cents at least.

But that has nothing to do with techs. Only the smallest percentage of people who play football will every play it professionally. Along with every other competitive thing ever. Even if Splatoon had zero techs, the vast majority would not be able to compete at the highest level because that's simply how the community would evolve. Only a certain percentage will put in the time necessary to be the best regardless of the barrier to entry.

Now, personally, I hope there won't be too many advanced techs like melee because that's not my style, but even if it doesn't have them that doesn't mean I'll actually be able to compete at the competitive level. I just may not have the skills. Only time will tell.

I will say that I like what I've seen so far though. I'm a big fan of one input, one output, and the situations that emerge from that. And so far, even the more advanced stuff in Splatoon seems to follow that.

 

[WydrA]

Honestly it ends up going the route that melee did, where only a tiny fraction of people can even hope to compete at a truly competitive level. Melee's bogged down with really input heavy techs like l-canceling, wave dashing, dash dancing, etc, and while none of these on their own are particularly strong (l-canceling is arguable tho) the sheer number of inputs gets ridiculous for most players. It stops players who might be really good with the mental aspect (reading their opponent, tactical positioning, etc) from being able to compete if they just don't quite have the finger speed.

If the rewards don't make enough of a difference competitively and it's mostly a 'hey look at this cool thing I can do with this ridiculous input' then there isn't really a problem, or if the difficulty is just 'well it's kind of hard to time right' then it's probably fine too. It's mostly the 'you have 2 frames to input this and you are expected to do this consistently and regularly through the game' where things gets a bit gate keeper-y.

That's my 2 cents at least.

L cancelling inputs ---> Press L (when 20 frames from the ground)
Dash dancing -----> Y, 1/3, L
Dash Dancing ----> 4646464646464646 (this is literally the easiest tech I've ever done. In fact it's a lot easier in melee than brawl and smash 4)

The number of inputs per second have very little to do with the high skill ceiling melee has. League, CS:GO, and Starcraft all have barely any tech, and none that are particularly complicated. They all have the same "problem" where getting to be the best of the best is incredibly hard. The people at the top aren't at the top because of how quickly they press buttons, they're the best because they put the time in to learn everything, and practice it all. Unless you have a disibility, everyone has the ability to become a top level player in a game like Melee. Leffen is quickly becoming one of the best, and he hasn't been playing the game nearly as long as any of the "Gods".
The whole point of competitive is kind of gate keeper-y. The point of competitive is to be the better team/player, and that means that you use whatever knowledge and tech you know to get the one up on the opponent. In fact that kind of makes more complicated tech a good thing. It raises the skill ceiling, and means that those techs are useful in being able to verify who the better competitor/s is/are.

But that has nothing to do with techs. Only the smallest percentage of people who play football will every play it professionally. Along with every other competitive thing ever. Even if Splatoon had zero techs, the vast majority would not be able to compete at the highest level because that's simply how the community would evolve. Only a certain percentage will put in the time necessary to be the best regardless of the barrier to entry.

Now, personally, I hope there won't be too many advanced techs like melee because that's not my style, but even if it doesn't have them that doesn't mean I'll actually be able to compete at the competitive level. I just may not have the skills. Only time will tell.

I will say that I like what I've seen so far though. I'm a big fan of one input, one output, and the situations that emerge from that. And so far, even the more advanced stuff in Splatoon seems to follow that.

This made me think I should probably point out that just because the skill ceiling gets very high, it doesn't mean you need to reach it. You can always play at whatever level you're comfortable at. Tat's what the vast majority of people in every other competitive community do. Whatever is the most fun for you is what you should do :)

 

[Draayder]

I know I wasn't part of this discussion, but my two cents.
Techs aren't a bad thing, but it's at least a little disappointing when something that should be seen an option to players becomes limited by their button pressing skill as opposed to what they decide to do with it. Taking Smash for example, I think the game would in general be more fun and fast if L canceling was automatic, as opposed to requiring a button press (As it is in the flash game "Super Smash Flash"). It would allow more people to get into competitive play, make casual players have more quick and fun game play, and wouldn't really have any effect on the established competitive players seeing as it doesn't really do anything to the skill ceiling. Speaking personally, as a smash fan, I'm horrible with quick button presses. In general I have slow reaction times, so even though my fundamentals are pretty good, I'm not really capible of hitting a button (Or several) within milliseconds. I think in the grand scheme of things, it's not a good mindset that players should be benefited like this because they can hit buttons really quickly, as opposed to their actual skill and decision making in the game play. Part of the reason I'm really interested in Splatoon is the fact it benefits smart choices more so than quick reaction times, as opposed to most shooters.
That being said, I can't imagine any kind of tech that requires quick button presses happening in Splatoon, I'm just speaking in hypothetical.

Yeah this is exactly how I feel on it. I know I can do the inputs for melee but I'm personally just not that consistent with them and I flat out don't like doing them. A lot of the time it feels like I'm putting too much brain space towards 'remember to press l at this time' rather than thinking about the match itself like I'd like to be (which I know could be mitigated with enough practice but it just doesn't seem to stick well for me).

But that has nothing to do with techs. Only the smallest percentage of people who play football will every play it professionally. Along with every other competitive thing ever. Even if Splatoon had zero techs, the vast majority would not be able to compete at the highest level because that's simply how the community would evolve. Only a certain percentage will put in the time necessary to be the best regardless of the barrier to entry.

Now, personally, I hope there won't be too many advanced techs like melee because that's not my style, but even if it doesn't have them that doesn't mean I'll actually be able to compete at the competitive level. I just may not have the skills. Only time will tell.

I will say that I like what I've seen so far though. I'm a big fan of one input, one output, and the situations that emerge from that. And so far, even the more advanced stuff in Splatoon seems to follow that.

Oh yeah I agree that the percentage will be tiny either way, but you cut it down from the overall pool of 'people who could compete due to skill/tactics/reactions/decisions' down to 'people who can do that AND can do enough inputs' so you still end up losing people who could have been competitors is my point really. Mostly it's a little frustrating to see a game favor pure mechanical skill so much over all other types of skill a person could have, since in many games you could still win even if you are the lesser technical player through good enough tactics and strategy.

I do agree that I doubt this will even be an issue with splatoon and I feel that if something akin to l canceling did pop up nintendo would likely just patch it out anyways.

 

[ThatsSo]

In fact that kind of makes more complicated tech a good thing. It raises the skill ceiling

To be honest I agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying, but this is where you lose me. The gods wouldn't be any worse than they are now if smash techs were easier. They'd be able to play exactly the same, meaning nothing would happen to the skill ceiling. If anything they'd be better, even the gods miss a tech every now and then. Except Aramada.

This may be kind of an odd metaphor, but imagine games as an art, and the things you can do in the game are your supplies. Don't you think in the grand scheme of things, the art would be better if everyone had easy access to all of the supplies? For someone like me, who genuinely has put in effort to learning Smash techs, I practically don't have those tools in front of me. With easier techs, NOTHING changes at the highest level, but things get more interesting at the lower levels. Don't mistake me for the people at the beginning of this thread who seem to be in favor of limiting the "supplies" entirely, I'd love a vast amount of supplies, I just want those supplies to be accessible to everyone. A person who is better than others should certainly reap the benefits of it, but they should be better in the sense they are able to make better art with their supplies, not in the sense that others aren't as capible of using those supplies.

 

[Gsnap]

To be honest I agree with a lot of the stuff you're saying, but this is where you lose me. The gods wouldn't be any worse than they are now if smash techs were easier. They'd be able to play exactly the same, meaning nothing would happen to the skill ceiling. If anything they'd be better, even the gods miss a tech every now and then. Except Aramada.

This may be kind of an odd metaphor, but imagine games as an art, and the things you can do in the game are your supplies. Don't you think in the grand scheme of things, the art would be better if everyone had easy access to all of the supplies? For someone like me, who genuinely has put in effort to learning Smash techs, I practically don't have those tools in front of me. With easier techs, NOTHING changes at the highest level, but things get more interesting at the lower levels. Don't mistake me for the people at the beginning of this thread who seem to be in favor of limiting the "supplies" entirely, I'd love a vast amount of supplies, I just want those supplies to be accessible to everyone. A person who is better than others should certainly reap the benefits of it, but they should be better in the sense they are able to make better art with their supplies, not in the sense that others aren't as capible of using those supplies.

I guess I get what you're saying. But the art/supplies comparison doesn't seem quite right to me. Honestly, the only things I think we should compare a competitive activity to is another competitive activity. And every competitive activity (at least every one that is based on action) will have execution barriers that raise the skill ceiling and separate the group of high level players from low level players.

Take baseball for example. When throwing a ball, everybody has their natural way of throwing the ball. They don't really have to practice throwing in any specific way in order to be able to just throw. They just have to do it. And the more they do it, the better they get at it. But if they just stick to their basic throw, then they'll never be able to hang with the pros. No matter how good they get with their natural throw, it won't matter because the pros learn all different kinds of throws. Fast balls, curve balls, etc. They have to learn and practice throwing the ball in a specific way that might be unnatural to them at first. They have to get past an execution barrier in order to play at the highest level. And Baseball is a better off for it. The game wouldn't be as interesting if nobody figure out the "advanced techs" like the curve ball.

It seems like what a lot of people are asking for is that they just be allowed to play at their natural level. That once they reach their personal, natural barrier, the game shouldn't evolve to a higher point than that, because that would require too much practice in dexterity, and thats... bad for some reason?

Besides, it doesn't matter how much game designers try to avoid these things, they'll come out eventually. It's natural, especially for action games. They're just a set of mechanics and systems, and when you allow these systems the freedom to interact with each other, unexpected results will come out of it. It's the natural process of competition. The players that are heavily invested will always want to push themselves higher, so it's actually better when the game allows for it. That way you can have several levels of play and more than one group can enjoy the game.

 

[ThatsSo]

And every competitive activity (at least every one that is based on action) will have execution barriers that raise the skill ceiling and separate the group of high level players from low level players.

First of all, I don't mean to be rude, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a skill ceiling is. A games skill ceiling is how good you can get at the game. Execution barriers do not at all allow the better players to be any better at the game. I’m going back to what I was talking about before, in Smash, if L canceling were done automatically, would the Smash Gods be any worse at the game? The answer is no, they would be the same.

I think what you’re meaning to talk about is a skill curve. A skill curve is what separates high level players from low level players. A game with a high skill curve will have you surpassing others exponentially as you get better at it. I know this might seem like a fairly pedantic argument, but I think the distinction is pretty important. A game having a high skill ceiling is a very important thing; I think all of us in this discussion are in agreement there. A game having a large skill curve is important too, but not as much. With more complicated advanced techs, the best players would have a further distance between them and the average players, but a game with simple techs would be an awful lot more exciting at a lower level. Honestly, I don’t think the knowledge that some people are that high above other’s really enriches the game experience in any way.

But I want to clarify something, what we’re talking about stops mattering after a certain point. What’s stopping the other top players from beating the Gods isn’t their lack of tech skill. Easier techs alter the skill curve, but it doesn’t affect things at that high a level. An alright player with great tech skill isn’t even a shoe-in to win a local. Easier tech skill wouldn’t effect high level smash at all. The only effect it could have is making people who are good players, but not so good at hitting several buttons in milliseconds, getting a more fair chance. As I was saying earlier, the limiting factor should be what they do with their tools, not whether or not they’re even capable of using those tools.

They have to get past an execution barrier in order to play at the highest level. And Baseball is a better off for it. The game wouldn't be as interesting if nobody figure out the "advanced techs" like the curve ball.

And now honestly I feel like you’re misunderstanding my argument. I tried in my last post to differentiate myself from the people at the beginning of this thread. I am saying there should be a high skill ceiling, but people’s success should be dictated by skill at the game rather than ability to press buttons in an unnecessarily quick succession to do something that becomes mandatory at higher levels.

Following your metaphor, I’m not arguing that no one should throw curve balls, I’m saying wouldn’t the game be more interesting at lower levels if EVERYONE could throw curve balls? I realize that sounds odd, but do remember we’re talking about skills in a video game, where the maker of a game can choose the difficulty of these things. The same as before, high level play wouldn’t change. The fact that some low level people are now better than they used to be doesn’t make you any worse. And do keep in mind it’s not to the extent that low level and high level get mashed into one, it’s more like low level getting a slight bump upward. I admit this is an arguably topic and a matter of opinion, but I’d think it’d be preferable the average gameplay was more advanced, although knowing it made them one step closer to the high level gameplay.

Besides, it doesn't matter how much game designers try to avoid these things, they'll come out eventually. It's natural, especially for action games. They're just a set of mechanics and systems, and when you allow these systems the freedom to interact with each other, unexpected results will come out of it. It's the natural process of competition.

I’m not sure if you realize how hypothetically we’re talking here. There’s probably less than a 1% chance that splatoon will ever see anything like what we’re arguing over, though you seem to be talking like it’s an inevitability. At this point the argument doesn’t even have anything to do with Splatoon to be entirely honest.

And again, I think this also shows you’re misinterpreting my argument. I’m not at all saying techs are a bad thing, I’m saying the benefit the game as a whole if they’re easier to do.



Now, this probably seems ridiculous but it’s 3 AM in my timezone and I have literally nothing better to do with my life, so just to further explain what I’m arguing in favor of, I created a little set of graphs showing how these kind of things would effect a skill curve. The black line is the skill of the player, and the red area is the various possibilities of how exciting the gameplay is, assuming higher skill = More exciting gameplay

The graph to the left is a game with techs that are difficult to do. Smash is a good example of this. The low level players are kind of walled off by the techs, but once they can do them, they are only limited by how good they are as a player. As such, the low level gameplay is mostly going to be fairly boring. Back to my art metaphor, this is like giving the player a bunch of art supplies, but only letting him use some of them until he reaches a certain point. In the beginning he won’t make anything worth looking at, but eventually he’ll get the full set and be alright.


The graph in the middle is what I’m arguing in favor of, a game with techs that aren’t difficult to use, but just as beneficial to the person using them. After a certain point, the curves are the same. This being the point at which people have a good mastery of their techs. The difference is the area before that, and in a game with easy techs, the low level gameplay would be a lot more interesting because the players would be better. From the very beginning, they would only be limited by how they use the tools in front of them, not whether or not they are able to use the tools in front of them at all. Going back to my art metaphor, this is like giving the player all the art supplies they have, right from the beginning. In the beginning they’ll make alright stuff, and just get better over time with no real roadblock.


The graph on the right is what you seem to mistakenly think I’m arguing for, and what the people at the beginning of this thread seem to want. A game where being on the top percentile skill wise doesn’t really mean much, because the game doesn’t benefit good players by giving them more tools. Going back to my art metaphor, this is like giving you a green crayon and that’s literally it. Even the best players wont draw anything that much better than the worst.




I can’t believe I just typed this entire thing up. We’re arguing hypothetical techs in a game that isn’t even released yet, with metaphors about art and baseball. I’m going to sleep.

 

[PixL]

Competitive folks will probably find a way to ruin the fun of the game, that is for sure.

O-Ouch...That's cold...

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

@ThatsSo That's that splatoon hype. Clouding your emotions and thoughts. Tis powerful, my friend.

O-Ouch...That's cold...

Think it's cold? Posts like that, are ignorant.

 

[Gsnap]

CUTTING THE QUOTE SO I DON'T TAKE UP THE WHOLE PAGE

"I am saying there should be a high skill ceiling, but people’s success should be dictated by skill at the game rather than ability to press buttons in an unnecessarily quick succession to do something that becomes mandatory at higher levels."

Ok... here's my problem with posts like your and others. You're trying to act like "skill at the game" and the "ability to press buttons in an unnecessarily quick succession to do something that becomes mandatory at higher levels" are two separate things. They aren't. You can't just dictate that playing one way is playing the game, and elevating that to a higher level via higher dexterity is somehow not playing the game anymore. The game is pressing buttons. So if someone is better at pressing buttons than you are, and they're able to apply that practically to a match, then their success was dictated by their skill at the game.

So whenever I hear people complaining about games requiring higher dexterity to play at the top level, all I'm really hearing are people saying, "Man, I hope I don't have to actually practice a lot to be good at this game."

I'm gonna leave this argument now, because like you said, we are just arguing hypotheticals.

 

[Draayder]

Ok... here's my problem with posts like your and others. You're trying to act like "skill at the game" and the "ability to press buttons in an unnecessarily quick succession to do something that becomes mandatory at higher levels" are two separate things. They aren't. You can't just dictate that playing one way is playing the game, and elevating that to a higher level via higher dexterity is somehow not playing the game anymore. The game is pressing buttons. So if someone is better at pressing buttons than you are, and they're able to apply that practically to a match, then their success was dictated by their skill at the game.

I know you said you're leaving the argument, which is fine, feel free, but I do want to say one thing. Skill at the game encompasses all aspects of things you can be good at, one of them being technical skill, which is what we've been talking about. Some games are impossible to play at a high level without a high level of technical skill (melee for example) while others are more balanced or tilted the other way where other aspects of skill such as tactics or match up knowledge are can beat out technical skill. For the most extreme example, chess. All the technical skill you need is the ability to move chess pieces and not knock over your king lol, but the rest of the skill at the game is still there.

I don't think any of us are arguing that we want the game to have NO technical skill, of course there's some minimum such as being able to walk and shoot and jump decently, but I'm saying at least that I don't want the game to be as stilted towards the technical side of things as something like melee is. It doesn't look like it will be, and I'm extremely happy with that.

So whenever I hear people complaining about games requiring higher dexterity to play at the top level, all I'm really hearing are people saying, "Man, I hope I don't have to actually practice a lot to be good at this game."

I do think this is a bit condescending tho after there were several posts in the thread about people just not being able to get the hang of techs. I think it's hard to recognize that not everyone can do something and for some people no amount of practice is going to change that. Not everyone has the same level of dexterity, I know I for one have put in over 600 hours with just Sheik in melee and I'm still not great at techs and I straight up cannot compete at tournament level because of it. In Smash 4 however, which is relatively tech-lite, I do just fine. Some people really enjoy the super tech heavy, high input games and that's fine, I just don't like them and feel in a lot of cases it doesn't add much to the game, so I'm glad to see splatoon looking to be more focused on intuitive skills.