If you use Brawling, you have limited access to possible Fight! maneuvers. If you use a weapon skill or Boxing, you have access to all Fight! maneuvers.
So why is this so limiting? Brawling gives you Strike, Great Strike, Avoid, Push, Charge, and Lock. Lots of great maneuvers. You can get along fine with those. Boxing and weapon skills give you those moves and a few other choices, but no choice is "better" than any other choice. You simply have access to a wider variety of tactical options.
All other things being equal, Boxing wins every single time. Why? Because Brawling makes you predictable. When you limit the number of options a player has, there are only so many ways they can react to a situation. This allows you to pigeonhole the players with fewer options trivially. You can create situations in which you have a clear advantage and the other player will be helpless to stop you.
In Burning Wheel, this is expected. That's the point of the game. This is not the case in a sport, nor in any sort of truly fair game. Imagine if some soccer players could grab the ball with their hands and others couldn't. It would fundamentally change the game, and whoever has the larger number of hand-grabbers wins.
This is not an issue if this advantage is earned with the development of skill and the game is not one based on fairness, but TF2 only rewards time played and grants you the illusion of increased skill. You can only be so good at the game; past that, it comes down to luck, and that will only turn into advantages with sufficient play time.
Does that make sense? Having fewer tactical options available makes you predictable. In a martial art, that's expected, but in a game like TF2, it results in broken play. The player who plays most will eventually get all the shiny things, but have nothing to show for it aside from shinies. Your TF2 skills will not help you at other, more difficult FPS's.
If you are talking about winning the gold medal in the context of a single olympics, the suit is absolutely fair. Even if not all swimmers have the suit, or choose to wear it, it is fair as long as it is available to all swimmers. If there is a factor, such as money, which allows some swimmers to have it, but others not to, then it is not fair. But if everyone has the suit as an available option, then the competition is fair regardless of whether or not every swimmer chooses that option.
I was actually just thinking about the Olympics after I made my post. In terms of sports, I would agree that the Olympics are probably the least stateful of all sports competitions. The only way they could be truly stateless is if everyone competed in the nude, but the equipment they use is equal enough to be negligible.
So in your golf example, yes one player might have better clubs. However, if those clubs are truly better, why don't the other players also get them? All clubs are available to all players. Professional golfers all have enough money to buy whatever clubs they want. If one of them chooses sub-par (pun intended) clubs, then that is their own poor decision making.
Yes, professional golfers all do have the resources to get whatever equipment they want. It is also true, though, that many golfers get custom sets of clubs that no one else has. Still, for them, they do have a mostly open field to choose what they want. But that's certainly not the case for amateurs or students. Sports in general do everything they can to make the games as stateless as possible, but there is no way they can ever hit 100% like some other games can.
Yes, professional golfers all do have the resources to get whatever equipment they want. It is also true, though, that many golfers get custom sets of clubs that no one else has. Still, for them, they do have a mostly open field to choose what they want. But that's certainly not the case for amateurs or students. Sports in general do everything they can to make the games as stateless as possible, but there is no way they can ever hit 100% like some other games can.
There are, however, specific regulations as to what clubs are allowed and which are not. If someone discovers a club design that is within the regulations that is superior, then everyone else can get identical clubs if they so desire.
There are, however, specific regulations as to what clubs are allowed and which are not. If someone discovers a club design that is within the regulations that is superior, then everyone else can get identical clubs if they so desire.
There's a also a great deal of difference in the margin of error for the clubs. Irons especially, 99% of golfers wouldn't be able to hit professional blade irons worth two shits. The margin for error with those clubs is absurdly small. They are superior only if you have the skills to use them.
There's a also a great deal of difference in the margin of error for the clubs. Irons especially, 99% of golfers wouldn't be able to hit professional blade irons worth two shits. The margin for error with those clubs is absurdly small. They are superior only if you have the skills to use them.
I was unaware of this. That's very interesting if it is true. I think it is the mark of a good game when the more powerful options available are also more difficult.
For example, in Quake you will do a lot more damage with the rail gun than with the chain gun. However, it's really easy to get some hits with the chain gun. Rail gun not so much.
I wonder, though, why golf clubs are this way. Is it physically impossible to make a golf club that will hit as well with less margin for error? Or is it that golf club regulations disallow club designs which make this possible.
That makes crazy no sense. That's just the PC survey, not the Mac survey, so the Macs are not throwing off the data. Also, Vista/7 usage has increased greatly. Unless there's a huge wave of people running Steam off of USB sticks or other external drives, perhaps network drives, I think they have a bug. Or maybe they had a bug before that was reporting false positives, and they've corrected it.
I was unaware of this. That's very interesting if it is true. I think it is the mark of a good game when the more powerful options available are also more difficult.
For example, in Quake you will do a lot more damage with the rail gun than with the chain gun. However, it's really easy to get some hits with the chain gun. Rail gun not so much.
I wonder, though, why golf clubs are this way. Is it physically impossible to make a golf club that will hit as well with less margin for error? Or is it that golf club regulations disallow club designs which make this possible.
There are regulations that goven the weight and springiness of a club head. This is mostly applied to "woods," irons aren't as hemmed in by these rules. It's just an engineering tradeoff. You can put the weight in the middle and that'll impart the greatest energy to the ball with the greatest accuracy, however this makes the sweet spot (the point at which those two events occur) very small. Cavity back or perimeter weighted clubs offer a larger sweet spot so they're easier to hit, but because the weight isn't right in the middle they don't impart as much energy to the ball and because you don't have to hit them dead center for the ball to go they aren't as accurate either.
Another interesting thing about golf is that for the most part, the game is entirely skill. The equipment makes a difference for the top 1%, the professionals. There was a guy with a $10 driver from walmart that could, every time, hit it further and straighter than the people with $200-$500 drivers. You can play your whole life (once you're an adult and don't need different lengths) with one set of clubs and be no better or worse than people who change clubs often. The skill cap of golf is just retardedly high.
It's mostly skill. There is some very small amounts of randomness. Sudden gusts of wind, and all that. It's negligible though, as it is the same randomness that is inherent in all activities dependent upon the laws of physics.
as it is the same randomness that is inherent in all activities dependent upon the laws of physics.
But we're pretty sure none of that is random at all. ^_~
All of that aside, did anyone else notice that the Swiss Supreme Court ruled that Texas Hold'em Poker is primarily a game of chance, not of skill. Bluffing and odds-calculation exist and matter, but they ruled that luck is the primary factor in an individual game, and too significant a factor in repeated games, for Poker to itself be considered (and regulated) as a game of skill. It now falls under the same laws that Blackjack and Slot Machines do.
It's mostly skill. There is some very small amounts of randomness. Sudden gusts of wind, and all that. It's negligible though, as it is the same randomness that is inherent in all activities dependent upon the laws of physics.
Yes, there is some inherent randomness. Good players have to be skilled at adapting to changing conditions.
All of that aside, did anyone else notice that the Swiss Supreme Courtruledthat Texas Hold'em Poker is primarily a game ofchance, not ofskill. Bluffing and odds-calculation exist and matter, but they ruled that luck is the primary factor in an individual game, and too significant a factor in repeated games, for Poker to itself be considered (and regulated) as a game of skill. It now falls under the same laws that Blackjack and Slot Machines do.
Rym and Scott, do you think people are stupid for liking Team Fortress 2?
No more so than I think the people who continue to play and enjoy Monopoly into adulthood are stupid. I find the game to be a poor test of the skills in which I am interested in competing, and a mediocre test of the skills it does actually contest. It's a team-based paper-rock-scissors strategy game far more than it is an FPS in the traditional sense. What class you encounter has far more impact on the outcome of a fight than the skill of either player involved.
I prefer FPSs that have a high dexterity and reflexes component coupled with both individual tactics and team strategy. TF2 has basically zero individual tactics (they're obvious or arbitrary in almost all cases), a low cap on reflex/dexterity components, and a highly limited set of team strategies in most maps. That was bad, but the straw that killed the game for me was the addition of a further test: of willingness to engage in tedious achievement gathering.
So no, people who enjoy TF2 are not stupid. But they enjoy a game that I personally feel is beneath me, a game that has no value to me as a person.
Rym and Scott, do you think people are stupid for liking Team Fortress 2?
I have a different answer than Rym.
People are smart and stupid and all shades of grey in-between. And people are these things in different areas. There are nuclear physicists who enjoy reality TV shows. There are doctors who who read trashy romance novels. Meanwhile, they are plenty of amazing genius artists who believe in all kinds of woo woo because they are not smart at science.
If you like TF2, that doesn't mean you are stupid as a whole. I'm sure there are some genius programmers, much better than me, who are playing it. It does, however, mean you are game stupid just like the artistic genius is science stupid. However, you aren't necessarily super game stupid. If you like Candy Land or WoW, then you are even more game stupid than someone who likes TF2.
If you like Candy Land or WoW, then you are even more game stupid than someone who likes TF2.
Think of it this way. TF2 was a game that, for me, was still above the line despite all of its flaws. It was right on the edge of being a tolerable, playable game. I played it.
Adding leveling pushed it just below that line, and now I no longer play it. Consider what games I consider myself to be bad, and remember that TF2 still beats all of them.
Typical Rym, he spends 5-minutes with any game and if he doesn't immediately like it, he just hates it and starts throwing around all these big word, game theory bullshit. From what I remember of the old TF2 episodes was that they wanted an old Quake style game that had all the bunny hop and strafe jumping bullshit. There is a reason why that doesn't exist anymore, because it wasn't fun to a lot of people.
I could go on a rant but Rym has clearly made up his mind. He wanted TF2 to be like the old, and quite frankly broken, FPS and it didn't. He can put up or shut up. Make a mod for TF2 that makes it the way you want it. Right now, he's just shit talking and generally sounds like a whiny old man.
I have the upmost respect for you Rym, but seriously, you sometimes sound like a crabby old man who gets upset when something isn't the way you want.
Typical Rym, he spends 5-minutes with any game and if he doesn't immediately like it, he just hates it and starts throwing around all these big word, game theory bullshit. From what I remember of the old TF2 episodes was that they wanted an old Quake style game that had all the bunny hop and strafe jumping bullshit. There is a reason why that doesn't exist anymore, because it wasn't fun to a lot of people.
I could go on a rant but Rym has clearly made up his mind. He wanted TF2 to be like the old, and quite frankly broken, FPS and it didn't. He can put up or shut up. Make a mod for TF2 that makes it the way you want it. Right now, he's just shit talking and generally sounds like a whiny old man.
I have the upmost respect for you Rym, but seriously, you sometimes sound like a crabby old man who gets upset when something isn't the way you want.
Typical Rym, he spends 5-minutes with any game and if he doesn't immediately like it, he just hates it and starts throwing around all these big word, game theory bullshit. From what I remember of the old TF2 episodes was that they wanted an old Quake style game that had all the bunny hop and strafe jumping bullshit. There is a reason why that doesn't exist anymore, because it wasn't fun to a lot of people.
I could go on a rant but Rym has clearly made up his mind. He wanted TF2 to be like the old, and quite frankly broken, FPS and it didn't. He can put up or shut up. Make a mod for TF2 that makes it the way you want it. Right now, he's just shit talking and generally sounds like a whiny old man.
I have the upmost respect for you Rym, but seriously, you sometimes sound like a crabby old man who gets upset when something isn't the way you want.
Halo requires more skill than you think, how much have you played? I tried playing the old FPS, but never found them to be a lot of fun.
Ok. Rym got a free copy of Halo with his XBox. We'll play against you in that, and then you can play against us in Quake Live. What do you think the result will be?
We might lose Halo because we aren't used to console fpses with no mouse and keyboard. However, once we know the rules of the game, how all the weapons and such work, we should be able to do ok-ish.
In Quake I predict you will be destroyed repeatedly by orders of magnitude. You'll be fragged repeatedly from great distances. You'll never even touch the quad damage, if you even get a glimpse of it. If you get frags in the double digits, I'd be impressed.
Quake is a manly game of skill. Halo is a baby game. Perhaps the reason you don't think the old FPS are fun because they are hard?
We might lose Halo because we aren't used to console fpses with no mouse and keyboard. However, once we know the rules of the game, how all the weapons and such work, we should be able to do ok-ish.
In Quake I predict you will be destroyed repeatedly by orders of magnitude. You'll be fragged repeatedly from great distances. You'll never even touch the quad damage, if you even get a glimpse of it. If you get frags in the double digits, I'd be impressed.
So, what you're saying is that Helljumper will beat you at a game you're not used to or practiced at, and vice versa?
We might lose Halo because we aren't used to console fpses with no mouse and keyboard. However, once we know the rules of the game, how all the weapons and such work, we should be able to do ok-ish.
In Quake I predict you will be destroyed repeatedly by orders of magnitude. You'll be fragged repeatedly from great distances. You'll never even touch the quad damage, if you even get a glimpse of it. If you get frags in the double digits, I'd be impressed.
So, what you're saying is that Helljumper will beat you at a game you're not used to or practiced at, and vice versa?
Well, No shit.
I think I've seen him make this argument before. He's saying that at Halo they would lose, but not too badly because the skill cap is lower. At Quake, Helljumper vs. Rym or Scott would be like a six year old softball player vs. Mike Tyson in a boxing match. Because of the precision a mouse and keyboard allows, old-school PC FPSs have a much higher ceiling in terms of how good you can be. You can aim as fast as you can move the mouse, in Halo you can aim as fast as the game allows you.
Comments
If you use Brawling, you have limited access to possible Fight! maneuvers.
If you use a weapon skill or Boxing, you have access to all Fight! maneuvers.
So why is this so limiting? Brawling gives you Strike, Great Strike, Avoid, Push, Charge, and Lock. Lots of great maneuvers. You can get along fine with those. Boxing and weapon skills give you those moves and a few other choices, but no choice is "better" than any other choice. You simply have access to a wider variety of tactical options.
All other things being equal, Boxing wins every single time. Why? Because Brawling makes you predictable. When you limit the number of options a player has, there are only so many ways they can react to a situation. This allows you to pigeonhole the players with fewer options trivially. You can create situations in which you have a clear advantage and the other player will be helpless to stop you.
In Burning Wheel, this is expected. That's the point of the game. This is not the case in a sport, nor in any sort of truly fair game. Imagine if some soccer players could grab the ball with their hands and others couldn't. It would fundamentally change the game, and whoever has the larger number of hand-grabbers wins.
This is not an issue if this advantage is earned with the development of skill and the game is not one based on fairness, but TF2 only rewards time played and grants you the illusion of increased skill. You can only be so good at the game; past that, it comes down to luck, and that will only turn into advantages with sufficient play time.
Does that make sense? Having fewer tactical options available makes you predictable. In a martial art, that's expected, but in a game like TF2, it results in broken play. The player who plays most will eventually get all the shiny things, but have nothing to show for it aside from shinies. Your TF2 skills will not help you at other, more difficult FPS's.
For example, in Quake you will do a lot more damage with the rail gun than with the chain gun. However, it's really easy to get some hits with the chain gun. Rail gun not so much.
I wonder, though, why golf clubs are this way. Is it physically impossible to make a golf club that will hit as well with less margin for error? Or is it that golf club regulations disallow club designs which make this possible.
Another interesting thing about golf is that for the most part, the game is entirely skill. The equipment makes a difference for the top 1%, the professionals. There was a guy with a $10 driver from walmart that could, every time, hit it further and straighter than the people with $200-$500 drivers. You can play your whole life (once you're an adult and don't need different lengths) with one set of clubs and be no better or worse than people who change clubs often. The skill cap of golf is just retardedly high.
All of that aside, did anyone else notice that the Swiss Supreme Court ruled that Texas Hold'em Poker is primarily a game of chance, not of skill. Bluffing and odds-calculation exist and matter, but they ruled that luck is the primary factor in an individual game, and too significant a factor in repeated games, for Poker to itself be considered (and regulated) as a game of skill. It now falls under the same laws that Blackjack and Slot Machines do.
Rym and Scott, do you think people are stupid for liking Team Fortress 2?
I prefer FPSs that have a high dexterity and reflexes component coupled with both individual tactics and team strategy. TF2 has basically zero individual tactics (they're obvious or arbitrary in almost all cases), a low cap on reflex/dexterity components, and a highly limited set of team strategies in most maps. That was bad, but the straw that killed the game for me was the addition of a further test: of willingness to engage in tedious achievement gathering.
So no, people who enjoy TF2 are not stupid. But they enjoy a game that I personally feel is beneath me, a game that has no value to me as a person.
Edit - This doesn't mean that I'm saying it's wrong.
People are smart and stupid and all shades of grey in-between. And people are these things in different areas. There are nuclear physicists who enjoy reality TV shows. There are doctors who who read trashy romance novels. Meanwhile, they are plenty of amazing genius artists who believe in all kinds of woo woo because they are not smart at science.
If you like TF2, that doesn't mean you are stupid as a whole. I'm sure there are some genius programmers, much better than me, who are playing it. It does, however, mean you are game stupid just like the artistic genius is science stupid. However, you aren't necessarily super game stupid. If you like Candy Land or WoW, then you are even more game stupid than someone who likes TF2.
Adding leveling pushed it just below that line, and now I no longer play it. Consider what games I consider myself to be bad, and remember that TF2 still beats all of them.
I could go on a rant but Rym has clearly made up his mind. He wanted TF2 to be like the old, and quite frankly broken, FPS and it didn't. He can put up or shut up. Make a mod for TF2 that makes it the way you want it. Right now, he's just shit talking and generally sounds like a whiny old man.
I have the upmost respect for you Rym, but seriously, you sometimes sound like a crabby old man who gets upset when something isn't the way you want.
Who's right?
We might lose Halo because we aren't used to console fpses with no mouse and keyboard. However, once we know the rules of the game, how all the weapons and such work, we should be able to do ok-ish.
In Quake I predict you will be destroyed repeatedly by orders of magnitude. You'll be fragged repeatedly from great distances. You'll never even touch the quad damage, if you even get a glimpse of it. If you get frags in the double digits, I'd be impressed.
Quake is a manly game of skill. Halo is a baby game. Perhaps the reason you don't think the old FPS are fun because they are hard?
Well, No shit.
Edit: He didn't even answer my question. How much Halo have you played and which version was it?