is MASTERY the way to go?

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

problem 1: should we set and define a goal for our MAP?
problem 2: if yes, what should this goal be?

shoops/chakra answer
problem 1: YES!
problem 2: WORK TOWARDS A FUN MAP!

Amir answer:
problem 1: YES!
problem 2: INCREASED MASTERY!

the difference between our answer to question 2:
is that their is a subjective goal while mine is an objective one. chakra/shoop generally misunderstand this and reply with "whether we should increase mastery or not is also subjective", totally missing the point.

the first problem with chakra/shoop answer:
is that "we want to works towards fun" is a meaningless goal; we all want to work towards fun. you're not differentiating your goal from any other goal. its like working for apple and saying "i think our next phone should be a good phone", whereas im saying "i think we should increase amounts of functions and make a more stun-resistant shell". really bad analogy, but it gets the point across.

second problem:
is the one about subjectivity. if we all agree on working towards fun (which we already do), any suggestion can be justified and implemented into the map. ANY suggestion is valid as long as the person thinks it will result in a more fun map. "add blink for sheep plz, its more fun imo". you're not solving anything by adding the goal of "working towards fun"; you're stuck. this is the approach we've used for years, and the results are blatant. YEARS of debate with no end in sight precisely because its impossible to reach a logical conclusion. it results to either doing whatever the map-maker thinks its fun, or basing the decision on a half-assed "majority vote". this is not the case with mastery; its the opposite. ideas are implemented based on logic and good arguments REGARDLESS of what one individual(the mapmaker) thinks - logical conclusions can be made about which ideas to add.

in short; which goal to add is up for debate (and is subjective). "fun'' as a goal is a subjective, and thus useless, goal. increased mastery is an objective goal, and a usefull tool for getting shit done, and making consistent changes. so shoop, do you have any OBJECTIVE goal we can work towards, so that you can't justify any change you want by saying that its fun(where any rebuttal is equally valid by saying that its boring)? same question to anyone else opposing mastery as a goal.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

No I dont have an objective goal and I dont think its a good idea to have an objective goal since it will lead to a dogmatic approach. I prefer a pragmatic approach where we analyze the ideas individually.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

so shoop wants a majority vote to dictate decisions?

how about chakra? you got any suggestions or can we conclude that mastery is the best objective goal for sheeptag (assuming people want consistency in changes and not play russian roulette regarding what to add/remove)?

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Id rather play russian roulette than shoot myself in the head which is the case if we decide to add everything that "adds mastery".

Lets take a second and just consider exacly what amir suggests for the map. He suggest that as long as something adds mastery we should add it, regardless of the arguments against it.

First off, what does mastery mean? According to this online dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mastery, it means :

Quote :: Definition of MASTERY

1
a : the authority of a master : dominion
b : the upper hand in a contest or competition : superiority, ascendancy
2
a : possession or display of great skill or technique
b : skill or knowledge that makes one master of a subject :

Ok, and what does it mean to add this to the map? I am not sure. But if there is any "objective meaning" to it it would be that you add an element which gives you the oppurtunity of dominate, show superiority, display a great skill or technique etc.

Now, do we want to add EVERYTHING that adds this to the map, regardless of consequences? I know I dont. I dont want to add mirana arrow, earthquake or blink dagger. I dont want to add doomguards, I dont want to add tornado farms, I dont want to add tossfarms. If we decide that we should add everything that adds mastery there are MILLIONS of mapchanges we can come up with that we, without question, should add.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

yeah we're shooting ourselves in the head by implementing a system where its possible to reach logical conclusions about map-develoupment. forget about that, russian roulette sounds fine.

you see, the way shoop defines mastery is actually consistent with his russian roulette ''fun is my goal'' method. it allows for ANYTHING to be added. but in reality, as i've explained plenty of times, mastery is the exact opposite of that; it limits the amount of items we can add to the map. shoop, YOU'RE the one proposing that mirana-arrows and doom-guard should be added if some people think they are fun. you are arguing AGAINST YOURSELF! Laughing

increased mastery proposes increasing overall mastery in the map. what this means is that the difference between great players and bad players will increase. example: adding blink will DECREASE mastery because it completely removes runtag mastery, and requires zero mastery to perform. this means that the difference between traxx and simba will lessen - not increase. the same applies to most of your strawmen suggestions. if you can demonstrate that a certain item does increase overall mastery in the map, i don't see why we shouldn't add it. you're making a logical fallacy by assuming that an addition is bad because you give it a funny name.

further more, even if we somehow conclude that increasing mastery isn't always good (yet sometimes is), having this objective goal will result in a better map than just playing russian roulette. with your system, not only do we have the threat of adding "unwanted mastery"(like with my system), but one can also justify removing every good aspect of current ST, simply by adding "its boring" at the end of ur argument.

conclusion: mastery is a good, objective, goal. its the best goal provided so far. and even if we accept shoops flawed objections, its still superior to the current/shoops system. game OVER.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Then mastery isnt an objective goal either beacause it will be completley subjective what mastery is good to keep.

Adding invis decrease the mastery of runtag aswell and requires less mastery than blink dagger to use. Why do you want that in sheeptag?

Also, I am not in favour of adding mirana arrow.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

mastery is objective because the goal is to increase the difference between great and bad players. again, YOU'RE suggesting that we can decide what mastery to keep. im suggesting we add/remove anything that increases overall mastery. do you really not get it?

adding invis increases overall mastery. this is why we keep it.

trollpro is in favor of adding mirana arrows. so lets add it? i thought u wanted to build the map towards fun. or nvm, i forgot that we should build the map only based on what YOU think is fun with ur system Very Happy

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

And who decides whats overall mastery is lol?

Player A might benefit from one change and player B might benefit from another. Who decides whos "greatness" should be valued?

And as Ive said during the whole topic (and in previous ones) I am not suggesting a "system" that decides changes for us, I am suggesting we decide the changes depending on our own ability to analyze.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

noone decides what overall mastery is, this is the point. its like asking who decides that 1+1=2. either you increase overall mastery with an addition, or you decrease it. obviously we're gonna discuss about whether changes infact increase or reduce mastery, and do test-versions to evaluate controversial ideas, but the whole point is that we'll have a objective system for telling which side is correct given enough information.

this is not a possibility with your system. even if you have all the information in the world, you can never tell if a map-change is good or bad, precisely because its based on a subjective standard. this leads to INCONSISTENT changes. this is a bad way to develoup a map. so the question you ask me actually applies to you; whos concept of fun do we follow?

now answer. why dont we add mirana arrows if me, trollpro and mappy think its fun with your system?

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

But I am saying invis reduces mastery and you are saying it increases mastery. We have "tested" this idea for years. How do we know who is right?

And what dont you get? I am not suggesting any system. I am saying we discuss it and then the mapmaker simply make a decision, or even better (if BEER is willing) we make a democratic one.

Posts : 357 Join date : 2012-01-21

IDK how many times I have to say "fun" can be broken down into objective components.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

Quote :: shoop: And what dont you get? I am not suggesting any system. I am saying we discuss it and then the mapmaker simply make a decision, or even better (if BEER is willing) we make a democratic one.

Quote :: AMIR: second problem: is the one about subjectivity. if we all agree on working towards fun (which we already do), any suggestion can be justified and implemented into the map. ANY suggestion is valid as long as the person thinks it will result in a more fun map. "add blink for sheep plz, its more fun imo". you're not solving anything by adding the goal of "working towards fun"; you're stuck. this is the approach we've used for years, and the results are blatant. YEARS of debate with no end in sight precisely because its impossible to reach a logical conclusion. it results to either doing whatever the map-maker thinks its fun, or basing the decision on a half-assed "majority vote". this is not the case with mastery; its the opposite. ideas are implemented based on logic and good arguments REGARDLESS of what one individual(the mapmaker) thinks - logical conclusions can be made about which ideas to add.

applause for saying that ur not suggesting any system, then stating the system you suggest which happens to be the one i claimed it was.
''discussing it and making a majority vote'' IS a subjective, fun-oriented develoupment system. or do you have some other criteria for discussing changes besides what each individual thinks is fun/boring?

and yeah, invis increases mastery whether you want to admit it or not. thats the BEAUTY of the mastery system. no matter what one persons ignorance, lack of understanding, subjective bias or intentional deception leans towards, its completely irrelevant Very Happy

all that matters is reality. but obviously you're free to explain why you think invis reduces mastery and we'll see where the fallacies lie. if you have valid points = we're gonna remove the invis with the mastery system. mastery system is based on arguments, logic and experiments. no more voodoo hokkus-pokkus "remove/add invis because its boring/fun imo".

third attempt: answer why we can't add mirana arrows if me, trollpro and mappy suggest it? or are you ok with it if we get a majority vote?

Chakra
do it then?

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Invis reduces runtag mastery A LOT and adds almost no mastery of its own.

Blink dagger reduces runtag mastery, but not nearly as much as invis, and adds a lot more mastery of its own than invis.

I dont know what you mean with "being ok with it". If we use a democratic system and suggestion X wins a vote through a fair process then obviously Ill be ok with it. But I might still argue that we vote to remove it in the next voting.

Anyway, for the sake of it. Lets say we disagree on what adds most mastery, how do we decide what to do?

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

those are actually statements. you have to provide arguments/justification for your claims. if you provide a better explenation for why invis reduces mastery than others can for why it increases mastery, we'll remove it. how does the removal of the invis reward talent, skill and practice more than the addition of it?

mastery method implies that we'll be able to tell whos right given enough information. it doesn't guarantee right decisions. logical deduction and experimental testing don't guarantee the right conclusion, but they approach it with a high probability. mastery method = SCIENCE. shoop-method = russian roulette. you claim something and hope that it flies. "invis is boring - therefor remove it" vs "invis is fun - therefor add it". pray that the mapmaker/majority agrees with you.

we've been using shoops system for years, this is why the invis and stacks get added/removed CONSTANTLY. shoops system is inconsistent, subjective and makes it impossible to reach a conclusion. Mastery method is consistent, and has a very high probability of making right decisions given that we accept the premiss "increased mastery is good", since decisions are based on logic and experimenting with an objective goal in mind.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Scientific testing? Are you kidding me? You saying you have scientificly shown that invis adds mastery?

What tests have you made and where are the results?

Where is the logical deduction?

I havent seen any of this lol.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

noone except you denies that invis adds mastery. the general objection is that it doesn't matter. if we use the mastery method = decisions will be made on logic and experiments with objective criteria, as opposed to subjective perception about what fun is. so yeah, it's very safe to say that the mastery method is SCIENCE compared to the voodoo alternative you propose.

does ANYONE think that subjective goals are more efficient than objective ones? can ANYONE give a better/more agreed uppon objective goal than mastery? unless there are some killer responses to these questions, its safe to assume by now that the mastery method is our best alternative and should be implemented as a map-develouping goal.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Which is the logic and experiments wit objective criteria you have that supports that invis adds mastery?

I think most people thinks invis reduces mastery tbh. [b]But what people think is irrelevant if what you say is true, all you have to do is show the logic and scientific methods you had in mind to determine if it adds mastery or not.

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

Quote :: Which is the logic and experiments wit objective criteria you have that supports that invis adds mastery?

irrelevant

Quote :: I think most people thinks invis reduces mastery tbh. But what people think is irrelevant if what you say is true, all you have to do is show the logic and scientific methods you had in mind to determine if it adds mastery or not.

correct

again, can anyone confirm that they think subjective > objective goals? or provide a better objective goal? i assume most of us agree that mastery method is the KEY after this debate.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Ofcourse its not irrelevant lol, you claim there is logic and a scientific method to show what objectivly adds most mastery and I claim there isnt. Since your whole theory is depending on this I suggest you show what it is you had in mind. Otherwise we can abandon the idea direcly, regardless if we would prefer an objective method or not.

So, how do we know that invis adds mastery? I think it reduces and I think most people agree with me. You claim there is an objective way to show who is right, so show us lol.

Posts : 357 Join date : 2012-01-21

Chakra wrote:: I would make a real post about how mastery can't be the high-all end-all goal because it in itself is not a infallible, as illustrated by Shoop's Mirana arrow, and even Beer's consolidation that, "Mastery is good because ... the more mastery in a game then the more happy players," suggesting that "happy players" is the goal rather mastery (surprising, I know). I would then continue to explain, as I've done before already, that "happy players," or as I called it, an enjoyment factor, is the highest goals a game can be developed towards. Amir will say this is subjective, and that we need an objective measurement. I'll ignore the fact that mastery lacks any system of measurements (is it km^2/capita/s? j^E(3^s(m^2))/(C+s)? perhaps (average gold)/sheep/(US population)+(farm count)^2?), and then suggest that since enjoyment is so hard to measure, we break it down into component parts, such as frustration (spawned by inability to counter actions, inability to effect the game [2-20 problem], etc), challenge (i.e., mastery), speed (how fast the game is going, bare minimum apm required to be good, etc), and an array of other factors.
Amir would then pick one, or even a subcategory, and attack it. He'll elevate the small component to being the goal (instead of enjoyment).
Then the thread will derail into mindless bickering and shit.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

Btw, if a problem with sheeptag is that there is too little mastery and all changes that adds more mastery is good regardless of consequences why dont we just change the map so that it is identical to Warcraft 3 Ladder and then we can work from there using amirs scientific theory to determine further changes and through that create a better game than Wc 3? This would be objectivly smart given amirs theory.

I am just dying to see this method to determine what objectivly adds mastery. ^^

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

Quote :: Btw, if a problem with sheeptag is that there is too little mastery and all changes that adds more mastery is good regardless of consequences why dont we just change the map so that it is identical to Warcraft 3 Ladder and then we can work from there using amirs scientific theory to determine further changes and through that create a better game than Wc 3? This would be objectivly smart given amirs theory.

or why don't we do this because simba thinks its more fun? this would be the correct change according to shoop if i got a bunch of 12 year olds to vote with me (as a troll/manipulating them/whatever reason). i can't wait to see this result Very Happy

almost every objection you have to the mastery method actually applies to YOUR method as well, in most cases to an even bigger degree, and in certain cases it ONLY applies to your suggested method (such as the objection that anything can be added) Very Happy

besides, mastery method is set in motion after the fundamentals have been figured out. the fundamentals is the sort of game you want (1on1, team game, tag game, strategy game, fps etc). what sort of fundamental you pick has nothing to do with mastery. 1on1 games don't inherently contain greater levels of mastery than team-tag games.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

I got 2 objections against the "mastery method" :

A) I dont think its objective, if you want to claim it is show us a method to determine what adds mastery
B) If it was true that mastery is something objective and if it was true that it was always good to add regardless of the consequences (otherwise, how is it an objective method?) then why are there different games? Everyone would think the same game was funniest if this method had support in what constitutes a good game.

I dont see how any of these objections is a problem for letting the mapmaker decide changes or to vote about them?

Posts : 608 Join date : 2012-01-21

noone said that mastery constitutes a good game. you maybe like rolling dice for monopoly money, i like to play football. the reasons for implementing the mastery goal is independant of whether you think increased mastery is fun or not. so this would be a strawman. and ive already explained why its objective which you haven't refuted yet. noone has. son, simply denying it doesn't work Very Happy

i have dismantled every argument shoop has put up (mastery allows any change like blink-mirana arrows, mastery isnt objective, mastery suggests re-working the map into wc3 ladder, etc). read the debate and notice that shoop swaps arguments every time i shoot them down, each subsequent one being equally fallacious(generally a strawman or an argument that applies to his method to an even bigger degree)..

its the classic "last-post wins" tactic. you would assume that shoop would present his ''main 2 objections'' early in the debate(one of which is a strawman btw rofl...), but its a never ending story as usual. and stop using the "doom-guard" objection already.. just because DADDA-DADDY-DREW used this argument once in 2004 when we were all 13 years olds doesn't mean that its a valid point. it's an emotional argument without any substance. ATLEAST explain the functions of the suggest item and a reason for why it is indeed a bad addition...how can you even DREAM about this being a counter-argument to ANYTHING the way you present it? sick of these desperate, dishonest and immoral manipulation attempts that hinder map-develoupment.

no more baby-steps. until proper counter-arguments are made, here's the debate conclusion: objective goal > subjective goal. mastery is the best objective goal we've come up with. mastery method should be implemented. read the debate for an elaborative commentary on the conclusion.

Posts : 753 Join date : 2012-01-20

I am still wondering how this is an objective goal.

How to determine objectivly if proposition X adds mastery or not?