3 ms·

It took me a while to really _get_ the difference in mentality between different types of gamers and this difference would go a long way to explain what one per

• kbenson 10y ago
  I agree with what you are saying, but it's somewhat different to what I was explaining. Beyond learning curve and skill there are the mechanics of the game itself. These can affect not only the learning curve and the skill, but also provide positive and negative feedback loops, which can completely ruin the experience for many not because of a disparity of skill, but because of poor forethought of the designers. For example, in games where there are relatively few spawn points, spawn points are enemy accessible, and you can respawn multiple times per round, you might have a negative feedback loop on death through the camping of enemy spawn points. If this isn't mitigated in some way, such as through removing one of the prerequisites or making it fairly dangerous to attempt, it can turn into a situation where once this tactic is successfully employed, skill becomes much less important, and you may not be able to escape. In the original Quake/Quakeworld, there were routes around some maps where you could run the route, and things would spawn almost immediately prior to your arrival. For a person who knew this and traveled that route, not only would it allow them to effectively travel a large portion of the map to look for opponents while keeping themselves in good health with good ammo, and denying their opponents resources. This is a positive feedback loop on a successful player, and also reduces the effectiveness of skill. In the end, games that have easily implemented tactics (that is, they don't require a lot of skill) that nullify the impact of opponent skill and don't have tactical answers to those situations are not good vehicles for competition. A good competitive game is one where skill (speed, accuracy, knowledge, prediction, etc) is often the deciding factor, and tactics employed can be countered by a skilled opponent that is prepared for them.
  • jessewmc 10y ago
    I think I agree with your point in general, but it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3. Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and a large part of the game dynamic is, when you're behind, knowing when the opponent picked them up and knowing when to contest them. And obviously being skilled enough to do so. Variants of Quake 3 (and Quakeworld for that matter) are still played competitively, and the skill ceiling is extremely high. Your suggestion is that these games would allow a weaker player to win because of lucky spawn or item pickups early in the game, but this never happens. In all games (Tennis, chess, whatever) one player very often has to play from behind -- whether you agree this is a good thing or not I'm not sure, but it is one way to design a game, and the way many many competitive games well before video games work. If you play better you gain an advantage, otherwise what is the point of playing better until the last moments?
    • kbenson 10y ago
      > it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3 You're right. There were multiple factors that made it less fun than the alternatives I had at the time. > Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and a large part of the game dynamic is, when you're behind, knowing when the opponent picked them up and knowing when to contest them. > Your suggestion is that these games would allow a weaker player to win because of lucky spawn or item pickups early in the game That's not sufficient for the scenario I described. It's not just that you get specific items early, it's that some maps supported specific routes you could traverse that allowed monopolization of those item drops. Now, my point isn't that this is necessarily bad, but that without effective tactics to combat this (which may exist, I was by no means a pro), then it's possible it may boost the ability of a player over someone who might be considered somewhat more skilled at that game. Based on how good my recollection of the situation (from almost a decade and a half ago) was and how well I was able to ascertain methods to counter it (possibly very poor), it may not be a good example. > In all games (Tennis, chess, whatever) one player very often has to play from behind -- whether you agree this is a good thing or not I'm not sure ... I think it is a good thing (thus my original point, a few comments up-thread). I also think a game that's meant to be competitive and skill based that it should be possible for a more skilled player to outplay a less skilled player, given enough time. Any situation which allows the lead player to maintain a lead regardless of skill (or even just ignoring everything but great skill differences) is a poor game of skill, and not really fit for competitive play.