I wonder if competitive people will find ridiculous methods for winning

[Deleted Member]

Ridiculous methods? Unless its an anti-competitive game-breaking glitch that over centralizes the meta or straight up cheating in the event that Splatoon gets hacked, I wouldn't call it a ridiculous method

 

[TheRapture]

@TheRapture I mean I'm sure its out there somewhere, but these really new game specific concepts like "the skill ceiling" "Skill barriers" "Accessibility in competitive games" and "Actions per minute vs Inputs per minute" are very hard to pin down. I've spent a lot of time, literally scores of hours creating content, try to pin down and explain these same concepts and by comparison I feel like I did a very lack luster job even after doing a lot of research and web combing.

And even if I did come across a good definition somewhere that did I feel I'd be hard pressed for that same place to have applicable examples that relate specifically to our niche community. (a shooter with a majority of us coming from melee)

I feel as though the previous posts covered these concepts well.

The skill ceiling is the theoretically highest potential skill level players can achieve in a competitive game. If there's a high skill ceiling, there tends to be a correlation in more depth and higher skill gaps (which, of course, is dependent on another factor as well - the skill floor, or the theoretically lowest potential skill level players achieve in a competitive game).

I'd say a skill barrier would refer to a point in which being viable in competitive play or possessing a certain degree in viability requires a knowledge/usage of a particular skill. Though I haven't seen this term used much.

Accessibility in competitive games refers to how easy or difficult it is for players to "get into" a game. How quick and difficult it is for them to begin playing the game in a competitive environment. A game like Smash Bros. has high accessibility - the controls are simple, the characters are familiar, the tournaments are plentiful. A game like Starcraft 2 is low accessibility - the game requires high execution and knowledge, the competition is fierce and narrow, and the stakes are higher in most cases.

And Actions per minute vs. inputs per minute - these are two measurements of player behavior. Inputs per minute simply means the actual, individual actions performed by a player per minute. Actions per minute, however, refers to intentional, "productive" inputs performed by the player per minute. In Starcraft 2, for example, randomly clicking around in the game and hitting keys contributes to your inputs per minute, but you're not doing anything by doing any of that, so it doesn't contribute to your actions per minute. But if you build a unit or input a command, sure that will contribute to your inputs per minute, but it will also count as actions per minute.

Let's use Melee for example. Unlike in SC2, you can't check your APM or IPM in Melee, but let's say you could. If you went into the game and just moved your control stick around, doing that would contribute to your inputs per minute. But to also contribute to your actions per minute, you need to do specific things like an attack or a short-hop.

I'm pretty sure I explained all these things pretty accurately but if I'm off on any of that let me know.

 

[Zero Meddler]

I don't even understand why people hate on AT's or competitive gaming to begin with. It doesn't "ruin the fun", it's just a way some like to play. No one is forcing you to be competitive, so why hate if other people want to play that way? It's really stupid to see communities divide like this when in the end everyone wants to enjoy the game. So long as no one is cheating via hacking, aimbot, or whatever may cause illegitimate play, there shouldn't be a problem.

I've said what I needed to.

 

[missingno]

And Actions per minute vs. inputs per minute - these are two measurements of player behavior. Actions per minute simply means the actual, individual actions performed by a player per minute. Inputs per minute, however, refers to intentional, direct inputs performed by the player per minute, not just actions. In Starcradt 2, for example, randomly clicking around in the game and hitting keys contributes to your actions per minute, but you're not doing anything by doing any of that, so it doesn't contribute to your inputs per minute. But if you build a unit or input a command, sure that will contribute to your actions per minute, but it will also count as inputs per minute.

Isn't it the other way around? Every action has to have an input behind it, but not every input performs an action.

 

[TheRapture]

Isn't it the other way around? Every action has to have an input behind it, but not every input performs an action.

Yeah you're right, sorry. I edited my post.

Inputs per minute is just any input you do. Actions per minute are productive inputs that are actually doing something.

 

[<π.]

I feel as though the previous posts covered these concepts well.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

The skill ceiling is the theoretically highest potential skill level players can achieve in a competitive game. If there's a high skill ceiling, there tends to be a correlation in more depth and higher skill gaps (which, of course, is dependent on another factor as well - the skill floor, or the theoretically lowest potential skill level players achieve in a competitive game).

I'd say a skill barrier would refer to a point in which being viable in competitive play or possessing a certain degree in viability requires a knowledge/usage of a particular skill. Though I haven't seen this term used much.

Accessibility in competitive games refers to how easy or difficult it is for players to "get into" a game. How quick and difficult it is for them to begin playing the game in a competitive environment. A game like Smash Bros. has high accessibility - the controls are simple, the characters are familiar, the tournaments are plentiful. A game like Starcraft 2 is low accessibility - the game requires high execution and knowledge, the competition is fierce and narrow, and the stakes are higher in most cases.

And Actions per minute vs. inputs per minute - these are two measurements of player behavior. Actions per minute simply means the actual, individual actions performed by a player per minute. Inputs per minute, however, refers to intentional, direct inputs performed by the player per minute, not just actions. In Starcradt 2, for example, randomly clicking around in the game and hitting keys contributes to your actions per minute, but you're not doing anything by doing any of that, so it doesn't contribute to your inputs per minute. But if you build a unit or input a command, sure that will contribute to your actions per minute, but it will also count as inputs per minute.

Let's use Melee for example. Unlike in SC2, you can't check your APM or IPM in Melee, but let's say you could. If you went into the game and just moved your control stick around, doing that would contribute to your actions per minute. But to also contribute to your inputs per minute, you need to do specific things like an attack or a short-hop.

I'm pretty sure I explained all these things pretty accurately but if I'm off on any of that let me know.

And I think I agree with you on every point. You corrected ApM vs IpM.

 

[Undr]

For now, Google is your friend!

lol, I was just poking fun at people's tendency to use terms without knowing what they mean. I just work on the assumption that people don't know what they're talking about. =P

 

[Mayday]

To answer the original question provided in the topic:

If there are ridiculous methods to winning, then people are going to find them. The one rule that really stands true for all competitive games

 

[flc]

on apm/ipm, it's... complicated.

apm is, logically, the in-game actions one makes every minute, but in starcraft, it's always been the number if inputs a player makes per minute. part of the reason for this is just that one input usually means one action, but the fact remains that it's stuck with the game and the comp gaming scene as a whole for such a long time that trying to clarify its meaning is only going to invite more confusion from people who aren't familiar to begin with (the balance between accurate and recognisable terminology swinging in the direction of the latter).

I actually wasn't meaning to make the two out to be separate terms (even though they are) for this reason; I think the usual term people use is "real actions per minute" or some noise like that (you know, as opposed to those fake actions per minute)

I don't even understand why people hate on AT's or competitive gaming to begin with.

because the way everyone reconciles the many factors that, to them, constitute 'fun', they come to a unique conclusion that is logical to them; anything that does not align with their conclusion therefore seems unreasonable

 

[Zero Meddler]

anything that does not align with their conclusion therefore seems unreasonable

Funny you mention that since that's what every anticompetitive person does as well. They go at they go at the competitive people feeling their way isn't "the fun way" and from what I've seen of these type of discussions, they act the same way they feel most competitive people act when in reality, most people who play games competitively don't care how another plays (unless they cheat by hacking and stuff like that). Tension between both parties ultimately comes to a stalemate since "fun" is subjective, yet competitive and anticompetitive people "claim" to identify "what is fun and what isn't" to the other party when really at isn't the case.

 

[baronfel]

Funny you mention that since that's what every anticompetitive person does as well. They go at they go at the competitive people feeling their way isn't "the fun way" and from what I've seen of these type of discussions, they act the same way they feel most competitive people act when in reality, most people who play games competitively don't care how another plays (unless they cheat by hacking and stuff like that). Tension between both parties ultimately comes to a stalemate since "fun" is subjective, yet competitive and anticompetitive people "claim" to identify "what is fun and what isn't" to the other party when really at isn't the case.

I can say without a doubt competitive players in smash used to claim using items or certain stages was wrong. Even in fun tournaments tournaments. Maybe that's changed since Melee was 2 games so but I doubt it. However it is true nobodyssey cars if you don't try to play in public/online.

 

[Zero Meddler]

I can say without a doubt competitive players in smash used to claim using items or certain stages was wrong. Even in fun tournaments tournaments. Maybe that's changed since Melee was 2 games so but I doubt it. However it is true nobodyssey cars if you don't try to play in public/online.

They still do that, but it's more for balance reasons and eliminating randomness for a competition in favor of being a true test of skill. They don't remove items or stages from tournaments just for the sake of removing them. Competitive players find it fun to test their skill against others and again, no one is forcing anyone to play a certain way, so there's no reason why hate between the two groups should exist. Want to play with items or powerups and have all stages avaliable? That's cool. Want to have them off and have an agreed list of stages? That's cool too.

 

[<π.]

I don't even understand why people hate on AT's or competitive gaming to begin with. It doesn't "ruin the fun", it's just a way some like to play. No one is forcing you to be competitive, so why hate if other people want to play that way? It's really stupid to see communities divide like this when in the end everyone wants to enjoy the game. So long as no one is cheating via hacking, aimbot, or whatever may cause illegitimate play, there shouldn't be a problem.

I've said what I needed to.

This is how I've always rationalized the divide. Let me start wih an example hopefully it makes things a little more clear and helps you better understand the "non-competitive players" mind set.

To you aim bottling and wall hacks are unfair and unreasonable. I imagine that it is because the provide skills or information that is not normally avalible though the game. What hackers do is exploit game code to reveal this information. (And mind you hack is a skill you have to work to achieve) I've had conversations with hackers who justify what they do a numbers I ways. "Well anyone can get a hack" "this guy thought he was good so I wanted to shut him up" "it's just for fun it isn't hurting anyone!" And my favorite "they can just leave the room if they don't like it!" But these rationalization a just aren't fair to the normal player right?

Well to a large part of the gaming community we aren't too far off from those hackers! We too exploit game code finding generally unintitive but powerful ways to enhance our abilities. I completely understand the frustration of being bodied and bein unable to or not wanting to obtain the skills nesassary to counter them because I've played against hacks. I get it

So hats all that mean? Well when you come with this idea if no one is better than anyone else you have to take this approach; it depends on where you sit. It's okay to disagree! It is not okay to join a community of top level melee guys and try to remove them for exploiting, it's not okay to go to a kids birthday party and call them out for playing brawl. It's not okay to enter a tournament match with hacks on.

The majority ultimately decides what's fair and unfair. It's our job I be respectful of people's beliefs regardless if our own and teach those who -are- willing to learn.


P.S.
Typed this from my phone..

 

[Zero Meddler]

This is how I've always rationalized the divide. Let me start with an example hopefully it makes things a little more clear and helps you better understand the "non-competitive players" mind set.

To you aim bottling and wall hacks are unfair and unreasonable. I imagine that it is because the provide skills or information that is not normally available though the game. What hackers do is exploit game code to reveal this information. (And mind you hack is a skill you have to work to achieve) I've had conversations with hackers who justify what they do a numbers of ways. "Well anyone can get a hack" "this guy thought he was good so I wanted to shut him up" "it's just for fun it isn't hurting anyone!" And my favorite "they can just leave the room if they don't like it!" But these rationalization a just aren't fair to the normal player right?

Well to a large part of the gaming community we aren't too far off from those hackers! We too exploit game code finding generally unintuitive but powerful ways to enhance our abilities. I completely understand the frustration of being bodied and being unable to or not wanting to obtain the skills necessary to counter them because I've played against hacks. I get it

Edit: ... -facepalm- I completely missed the point didn't I?

So that's all that means? Well when you come with this idea if no one is better than anyone else you have to take this approach; it depends on where you sit. It's okay to disagree! It is not okay to join a community of top level melee guys and try to remove them for exploiting, it's not okay to go to a kids birthday party and call them out for playing brawl. It's not okay to enter a tournament match with hacks on.

The majority ultimately decides what's fair and unfair. It's our job I be respectful of people's beliefs regardless if our own and teach those who -are- willing to learn

I've personally never encountered anyone who I can say has definitely hacked but you do make solid points. And I fixed the issues in the statement. I get it. Phones and forums don't mix well for whatever reason.

Thing is, hacking is generally used as a way to quickly rise to the top without putting as much time or effort into the actual game in favor of downloading an outside program to do the work for them (well with most people anyway. I've seen people who have used hacks purely for aesthetics or just to simply fool around in a custom lobby. In a couple Halo games, I've seen maps with mods that allowed the creators to have MUCH more than what Forge actually gives them to work with and those were pretty cool. Another hack was a size hack where the character models were small and seeing in vehicles was hilarious. I understand hacks can be fun but taking them online where a majority of people won't have them or want to play for skill is where the issue lies). Exploits within the game and exploits via an outside source do differ since anyone with the game can learn them. No need to mod your console or any of that guff to become better verses getting aimbot because you're not that good with aim. (possibly contradicted myself here =/) In short, I think when it comes to hacks it's more about your intentions.

Edit:... I completely missed the point when I typed this, but now I get it... kind of.

 

[InkDaze]

Yh I don't really like competitive techniques
For example, firehopping seems kind of annoying, I'd like to play mario kart without thinking about those stuff, it kind of ruins the fun a bit so I don't do it

 

[doop]

This thread was a mistake. It's nothing but trash

 

[missingno]

I can say without a doubt competitive players in smash used to claim using items or certain stages was wrong. Even in fun tournaments tournaments. Maybe that's changed since Melee was 2 games so but I doubt it. However it is true nobodyssey cars if you don't try to play in public/online.

Well yeah, in a tournament you want a fair ruleset. Items are completely broken as are many stages, they don't belong in a tournament environment. What we're saying is that nobody complains if you leave them on with your casual friends. But if you try to insist they should be at tournaments, yeah, people are gonna yell at you. If you don't like the tournament ruleset don't play in tournaments.

 

[CloneHat]

The majority may decide what's fair and what's not, but it's irrelevant. The competitive minority will dictate how the game is played with winning in mind. Everyone else can choose to adapt or just play for fun.

 

[Annie]

I just hate it when people enjoy games in ways different from me! Filthy competitives trying to play the game the way they want to!

 

[Hinichii.ez.™]

I just hate it when people enjoy games in ways different from me! Filthy competitives trying to play the game the way they want to!

Kill it with bleach