What would be considered acceptable evidence? Would you accept evidence by experience? That is to say, would you challenge me at a 'no-skill' game and expect to win? Because that sounds both acceptable and fun. D3 doesn't have PvP yet, so we would have to find another venue.
Also you are the one who claimed to have the math and science, so shouldn't you first give that out?
This is true, but I'm also 100% confident that I would completely annihilate him in a cloned druid duel at World of Warcraft unless he literally practiced for years to play catch-up.
Question - If one plays against bots that match your level of skill(and slightly exceed it) in counterstrike, and say that constant measurements of your play were taken from this, then couldn't you trivially make counterstrike nothing more than a numbers game where you don't even need to play to determine the victor?
If it's such a high skill game, then a high skill player will always demolish a low skill player, except in the case of luck, which can be simulated by simply generating a random number and making different values benefit each player differently. I mean, in a game of Go, another high-skill game, if a high level player takes on a low level player, it's all over but the shouting - though of course, that's a bit of a silly one, as it's rare for someone who outclasses an opponent that much to play a serious-business match, and more likely this only occurs for practice.
What would be considered acceptable evidence? Would you accept evidence by experience? That is to say, would you challenge me at a 'no-skill' game and expect to win? Because that sounds both acceptable and fun. D3 doesn't have PvP yet, so we would have to find another venue.
If it's a no skill game then victory will be determined by chance or by rock-paper-scissors. I would not expect any player to win with regularity if the game were symmetrical.
It is also possible that a no-skill game is actually a knowledge game. For example, it could be rock-paper-scissors, but I don't know that scissors exists. Therefore I lose every time even though I have all the skills necessary to win, but some of the rules of the game are kept hidden from me.
For example we played a game this past weekend "Ora et Labora"
Good game we will probably discuss on the show. This is a German board game with a definite test of skill, but it contains a huge knowledge component. If one player has memorized all the cards in the game, and there are a lot of them, that player would have a huge advantage. We played not knowing the cards until they appeared, and were unable to plan in advance due to lack of knowledge. Some games are almost entirely knowledge games, and knowledge games are often mistaken for skill games.
There is also the matter of whether a game is testing external knowledge, knowledge of the rules, or knowledge of hidden rules. Trivial Pursuit tests external knowledge. MOBAs test, to a large extent, knowledge of the rules. You must know every hero and every item to have a chance. Pokemon tests knowledge of hidden rules. They don't tell you about all those secret points you can earn.
In my experience with Diablo II, which I bought when it came out, it is a game primarily of knowledge. If your character is equal to the opponent, then victory is determined by who can deal out the maximum average damage per second versus the other players HP and healing per second. Once you know the pattern for your character to maximize those two values, executing that pattern is relatively easy. The most important factor in determining victory is your character's stats, the second factor is your knowledge of the pattern to make your character fight optimally against a particular opponent, the third factor is randomness since damage is not absolutely deterministic. Statefulness, knowledge, and chance are not tests of skill.
Therefore, Diablo is not a test of skill. Yet, it is easy to see how it can appear to be a test of some skill when it is not examined very closely.
Question - If one plays against bots that match your level of skill(and slightly exceed it) in counterstrike, and say that constant measurements of your play were taken from this, then couldn't you trivially make counterstrike nothing more than a numbers game where you don't even need to play to determine the victor?
If it's such a high skill game, then a high skill player will always demolish a low skill player, except in the case of luck, which can be simulated by simply generating a random number and making different values benefit each player differently. I mean, in a game of Go, another high-skill game, if a high level player takes on a low level player, it's all over but the shouting - though of course, that's a bit of a silly one, as it's rare for someone who outclasses an opponent that much to play a serious-business match, and more likely this only occurs for practice.
You are correct except that Counter-Strike is the same as Go. High skill players do always demolish low skill players. Go to any pub server. You will usually see two teams with a relatively wide range of skills. Yet, you will always see just a handful of names atop the scoreboard every single round. They will be on the top not by a small, but by a very large margin. If they stack teams, and those high skill players are all on the same team, they will lose a half a round per blue moon.
What would be considered acceptable evidence? Would you accept evidence by experience? That is to say, would you challenge me at a 'no-skill' game and expect to win? Because that sounds both acceptable and fun. D3 doesn't have PvP yet, so we would have to find another venue.
If it's a no skill game then victory will be determined by chance or by rock-paper-scissors. I would not expect any player to win with regularity if the game were symmetrical.
Hence you have a simple test for determining whether or not something is, in fact, a no-skill game. Creamsteak is merely suggesting you try it out in practice.
It is also possible that a no-skill game is actually a knowledge game. For example, it could be rock-paper-scissors, but I don't know that scissors exists. Therefore I lose every time even though I have all the skills necessary to win, but some of the rules of the game are kept hidden from me.
Given access to the Internet and a relatively short amount of time to prepare, it's pretty easy to eliminate this aspect.
There is certainly a knowledge game to World of Warcraft or Diablo II. If you didn't know the UI, or even the basic premises of the game, you're fucked - certainly. But it's also obvious (from my level of experience) that knowing all the mechanics is insufficient. You make one wrong move and I will capitalize on it. You make enough wrong moves, and you've given me the game. And some mechanics are deeply hidden and not obvious to the users.
But I honestly expect that if I taught you everything I know, including demonstrations, showing you all the information I have, you would still be miles behind me at one of these games and specific characters that I've devoted thousands of real hours to.
And I'm still a godamn noob to a world-champion player. We both have access to all the information (and I can understand the underlying code that makes the mechanics work!) and I'll get owned by them.
There are clearly practice and learned skills at work. That you havn't seen them (and only saw the initial phase of D2) is just your own lack of information. Interestingly though, I will argue a side-point that ability to learn these games quickly is a skill as well that can be advanced. It's not the same skill that's tested, but it's an interesting skill to have.
You are correct except that Counter-Strike is the same as Go. High skill players do always demolish low skill players. Go to any pub server. You will usually see two teams with a relatively wide range of skills. Yet, you will always see just a handful of names atop the scoreboard every single round. They will be on the top not by a small, but by a very large margin. If they stack teams, and those high skill players are all on the same team, they will lose a half a round per blue moon.
Yes, Scott, That's why I said "In go, ANOTHER high skill game". I don't deny that on a meta level, they are very similar, not quite identical, but very similar. However, there is no luck element in Go. In counterstrike, there is a small element of luck - Not a huge amount, but it's still present.
What is skill? Doesn't any skill boil down to 1) Understanding the mechanics of the game 2) Understanding numbers 3) Reflexes (if applicable)
No, the first two are knowledge, not skill. There are other skills besides reflexes. There is the full set of atheltic skills, flexibility, endurance, stamina, strength, etc.
There is also skills of the mind that are not knowledge. Knowledge is simply having information in your brain, memory. It's not a skill. The skills of the mind are the ability to solve problems, solve problems quickly, solve problems precisely, store a lot of information in your conscious thought all at once to solve a large problem, etc. They can mostly be summed up as how good your brain is at using information, as opposed to how much information the brain has in it.
What is skill? Doesn't any skill boil down to 1) Understanding the mechanics of the game 2) Understanding numbers 3) Reflexes (if applicable)
The first two can be summarized as "Understanding the underlying mathematics", and in a sense this is true, but a lot of the time the key to game-skill is attaining a level of abstraction at which your brain can operate effectively. Additionally, there are intermediate processes between reflexes and strategy.
I think an argument could be made that all games are just databases with varying degrees of artistic overlay, and how "skillful" you are at solving the game is just a vector of genetic ability and training (practice, which is an IRL euphemism for grinding).
That would mean the only real difference between Counter-Strike and Diablo X is perception... how many layers of artistic ambiguity are between the root numbers and the participation?
There is also skills of the mind that are not knowledge. Knowledge is simply having information in your brain, memory. It's not a skill. The skills of the mind are the ability to solve problems, solve problems quickly, solve problems precisely, store a lot of information in your conscious thought all at once to solve a large problem, etc. They can mostly be summed up as how good your brain is at using information, as opposed to how much information the brain has in it.
Meta-information is still a kind of information, just as a computer program that processes information is itself a form of information. Ultimately, all of it is information that is stored in your brain in one way or another.
However, it is true that such information can be stored in different ways, and are not equally difficult to obtain.
There is also skills of the mind that are not knowledge. Knowledge is simply having information in your brain, memory. It's not a skill. The skills of the mind are the ability to solve problems, solve problems quickly, solve problems precisely, store a lot of information in your conscious thought all at once to solve a large problem, etc. They can mostly be summed up as how good your brain is at using information, as opposed to how much information the brain has in it.
Meta-information is still a kind of information, just as a computer program that processes information is itself a form of information. Ultimately, all of it is information that is stored in your brain in one way or another. However, it is true that such information can be stored in different ways, and are not equally difficult to obtain.
It is truth that on some level everything is information. However, there is a difference between the information for Atomic Trivia War and the information for Dance Dance Revolution, however you wish to describe it.
How many times do we have to explain the same concepts over and over again before people actually understand them? Read any thread in this forum about any other non-skill game*.
There is also skills of the mind that are not knowledge. Knowledge is simply having information in your brain, memory. It's not a skill. The skills of the mind are the ability to solve problems, solve problems quickly, solve problems precisely, store a lot of information in your conscious thought all at once to solve a large problem, etc. They can mostly be summed up as how good your brain is at using information, as opposed to how much information the brain has in it.
Meta-information is still a kind of information, just as a computer program that processes information is itself a form of information. Ultimately, all of it is information that is stored in your brain in one way or another. However, it is true that such information can be stored in different ways, and are not equally difficult to obtain.
It is truth that on some level everything is information. However, there is a difference between the information for Atomic Trivia War and the information for Dance Dance Revolution, however you wish to describe it.
Yes, and despite your previous comments, understanding is not the same thing as knowledge and both are different from skills. Lots and lots of high school students study various aspects of mathematics without ever really understanding them, but they still have the knowledge and often the skills needed to pass the tests.
To use chess as an analogy, your first five to ten moves are entirely covered by knowledge (i.e. knowing the openings); then in the middlegame (unless you're a computer) you need a combination of understanding (an ability to analyse the game on a more abstract level), knowledge (basic facts like the rules of the game and various common situations), and skills (various patterns and techniques learned through the course of play) to play well, and finally in the endgame knowledge starts to dominate again.
MOBAs test, to a large extent, knowledge of the rules. You must know every hero and every item to have a chance.
Yes, but the majority of people playing a given MOBA with any level of seriousness do, in fact, know every hero and every item, and so knowledge is not the deciding factor. One of the main factors that comes into play is their ability to actually condense that large amount of knowledge in order to make decisions in a relatively short period of time, which is in fact a nontrivial skill. Even the best MOBA players will make decisions that are obviously poor in hindsight.
MOBAs test, to a large extent, knowledge of the rules. You must know every hero and every item to have a chance.
Yes, but the majority of people playing a given MOBA with any level of seriousness do, in fact, know every hero and every item, and so knowledge is not the deciding factor. One of the main factors that comes into play is their ability to actually condense that large amount of knowledge in order to make decisions in a relatively short period of time, which is in fact a nontrivial skill. Even the best MOBA players will make decisions that are obviously poor in hindsight.
Never said MOBA wasn't a skill game. Just a bullshit game.
Never said MOBA wasn't a skill game. Just a bullshit game.
While I'm in no hurry to try Diablo III, a similar type of skill to what I just mentioned for MOBAs can be involved in RPGs. I agree that if it's simply about about doing maximum DPS, then indeed it's a trivial matter of memorizing a given skill rotation, and then I can agree there is pretty much no skill.
However, if you have to actually respond to the moves of your opponents, and they are responding to yours, and there is a significant amount of variety involved, especially with a decent number of players all playing at the same time, nontrivial gameplay can emerge. To some extent, this can also involve some skills similar to those in fighting games - namely, timing and reflexes.
Once again, I'll restate that I have no idea if this is applicable to Diablo III, but my point is that games of a very similar nature to it can, in fact, have an element of skill.
I want to do things with that girl. I don't care about your thoughts on the game or the commentary of the video. I just have the lust.
Also: While in-game, go to options and click "elective mode." That way you can load skills in any configuration on the action bar. Seven-sided fist in now my Mouse2.
Comments
If it's such a high skill game, then a high skill player will always demolish a low skill player, except in the case of luck, which can be simulated by simply generating a random number and making different values benefit each player differently. I mean, in a game of Go, another high-skill game, if a high level player takes on a low level player, it's all over but the shouting - though of course, that's a bit of a silly one, as it's rare for someone who outclasses an opponent that much to play a serious-business match, and more likely this only occurs for practice.
It is also possible that a no-skill game is actually a knowledge game. For example, it could be rock-paper-scissors, but I don't know that scissors exists. Therefore I lose every time even though I have all the skills necessary to win, but some of the rules of the game are kept hidden from me.
For example we played a game this past weekend "Ora et Labora"
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/70149/ora-et-labora
Good game we will probably discuss on the show. This is a German board game with a definite test of skill, but it contains a huge knowledge component. If one player has memorized all the cards in the game, and there are a lot of them, that player would have a huge advantage. We played not knowing the cards until they appeared, and were unable to plan in advance due to lack of knowledge. Some games are almost entirely knowledge games, and knowledge games are often mistaken for skill games.
There is also the matter of whether a game is testing external knowledge, knowledge of the rules, or knowledge of hidden rules. Trivial Pursuit tests external knowledge. MOBAs test, to a large extent, knowledge of the rules. You must know every hero and every item to have a chance. Pokemon tests knowledge of hidden rules. They don't tell you about all those secret points you can earn.
In my experience with Diablo II, which I bought when it came out, it is a game primarily of knowledge. If your character is equal to the opponent, then victory is determined by who can deal out the maximum average damage per second versus the other players HP and healing per second. Once you know the pattern for your character to maximize those two values, executing that pattern is relatively easy. The most important factor in determining victory is your character's stats, the second factor is your knowledge of the pattern to make your character fight optimally against a particular opponent, the third factor is randomness since damage is not absolutely deterministic. Statefulness, knowledge, and chance are not tests of skill.
Therefore, Diablo is not a test of skill. Yet, it is easy to see how it can appear to be a test of some skill when it is not examined very closely.
1) Understanding the mechanics of the game
2) Understanding numbers
3) Reflexes (if applicable)
But I honestly expect that if I taught you everything I know, including demonstrations, showing you all the information I have, you would still be miles behind me at one of these games and specific characters that I've devoted thousands of real hours to.
And I'm still a godamn noob to a world-champion player. We both have access to all the information (and I can understand the underlying code that makes the mechanics work!) and I'll get owned by them.
There are clearly practice and learned skills at work. That you havn't seen them (and only saw the initial phase of D2) is just your own lack of information. Interestingly though, I will argue a side-point that ability to learn these games quickly is a skill as well that can be advanced. It's not the same skill that's tested, but it's an interesting skill to have.
There is also skills of the mind that are not knowledge. Knowledge is simply having information in your brain, memory. It's not a skill. The skills of the mind are the ability to solve problems, solve problems quickly, solve problems precisely, store a lot of information in your conscious thought all at once to solve a large problem, etc. They can mostly be summed up as how good your brain is at using information, as opposed to how much information the brain has in it.
Additionally, there are intermediate processes between reflexes and strategy.
That would mean the only real difference between Counter-Strike and Diablo X is perception... how many layers of artistic ambiguity are between the root numbers and the participation?
However, it is true that such information can be stored in different ways, and are not equally difficult to obtain.
Lots and lots of high school students study various aspects of mathematics without ever really understanding them, but they still have the knowledge and often the skills needed to pass the tests.
However, if you have to actually respond to the moves of your opponents, and they are responding to yours, and there is a significant amount of variety involved, especially with a decent number of players all playing at the same time, nontrivial gameplay can emerge. To some extent, this can also involve some skills similar to those in fighting games - namely, timing and reflexes.
Once again, I'll restate that I have no idea if this is applicable to Diablo III, but my point is that games of a very similar nature to it can, in fact, have an element of skill.
wyatt.w.wells@gmail.com
NeoCloud #1345
Also: While in-game, go to options and click "elective mode." That way you can load skills in any configuration on the action bar. Seven-sided fist in now my Mouse2.