is MASTERY the way to go?

Amir still ignores post.

Anyway I dont know if amir realized the problem or not but Ill try to illustrate it better with this example.

Lets say we have 2 chessprograms that both in every given situation will make the exact same move, they are programmed differently (so in situation X computer A might make one move and computer B another) but always draw against eachother.

If we remove the queen from chess computer A would always win.

If we removed the bishops computer B would always win.

If we remove both they will always draw again.

Now, both removing the queen and removing the bishops would individually qualify as increasing mastery (which highlights the problem that who is the "good" and "bad" player is depending on the changes we make) but making both changes wouldnt increase mastery at all. So I assume if we want to "increase" mastery we can only do one of the changes, but what change should we make?

your post is useless chakra. i dont say that to be mean, honestly, i just don't see anything that's relevant/hasn't been explained. you've just misunderstood too many points. same goes for shoop. you can whine about this as much as you want, but i'd assume that you're getting the advantage if you're really presenting valid points that i'm not replying to. so we're both winners in our own mind win-win situation!




my job here is done. i can present a logical conclusion, but i can't force anyone to accept it or comprehend it.

its up to the people whether they want objective and consistent changes, or if they want to keep editing the map like we've done for years (remove/add invis every 17 days). i don't play ST, im just trying to help since i benefit indirectly from the map being as good as possible. but i guess it will be funny as hell when beer makes the next set of changes and people like night/traxx rage out, not realizing that they're part of the reason for that being acceptable since they're not pushing and fighting for setting defined goals to work towards ^^

You cant present an objective solution to determine mapchanges.

Strange that you are the only one that thinks that your "solution" is logical. Even stranger that this community has been impervious to your logic for years.

The problem, as Shoop and I have outlined, is that mastery can't be objectively quantified. You say it is objective from the definition itself: "a difference between good and bad players." Shoop questions how a "difference" can be measured. Further, how do we sustain who "good" and "bad" players are, and what "masteries" we should be aiming towards. ITIO is pretty good at typing. Maybe we should add "Type df893hjf the fastest" to earn 20 gold. ITIO will shine!!!

As Shoop wondered, if our end-goal is mastery, the game would devolve to to any other game with an end-goal of mastery. You responded that the game has "fundamentals" which shouldn't be changed. I'd argue the better term would be a "premise" of the game. That is, the game has specific points which must be maintained.

A mastery goal, or reason, would then logically be to increase the mastery within the elements outlined in the premise of the game. You define it as simply as being "tag game," I suppose. But obviously we want sheep tag, not Yoshi, Kodo, or Freeze tag.

You argue that invisibility objectively increases mastery of the overall game. Can you quantify this? Does it increase mastery of sheep? And does it increase the masteries that revolve around the premise of ST? Is "quick reaction" a premise? Does this premise come before strategic farm placement?

Shpeherds are even more of a problem. You declare it increases masteries of shepherds, but I think not. Perhaps if the game was 1v1, it wouldn't really matter. But if you're doing 4v4, and one of your allies is going invisible, then that means you are less effective. Your purpose as a cutter is made irrelevant because a side may now be completely exposed. You are downgraded to being as useful as TrollPro, whoever you are. Not only this, but now you are less likely to get items because your ally is wasting a team resource (time and money). You can't use a "master" item, such as golems, bombers, whatever the fuck, because some idiot is draining resources.

You can, of course, argue against that. But that just proves this is subjective, not objective.


Further, I said "fun" can be broken down into equally "objective" components, including mastery. Now you completely ignore the point, and say "we both win."


You keep saying we don't understand the point, but isn't it your job--if you want change--to make the point clear? Are we ignoring parts of your argument? If you want any change, you sort of have to be persuasive.


Finally comes the question of why development needs an objective goal. No designer has an objective goal at the end (unless you say it is to increase revenue/market share, but this is really a goal not of the designer). You used an example of Apple. Apple's goal IS to make a good phone. But "good" is objective, so they split it into subjective components. They don't develop a phone solely towards more features--this is simply a single component. Design, specs, etc, are all parts of being a "good phone." Likewise, a "fun game" shouldn't develop towards a single aspect.

if you can break down ''fun'' into objective components, buddy, you're aligned with me. this whole debate is based on the idea that fun isn't objective, and is therefor a useless goal. but by all means, if you can successfully make objective components of fun, we're going to implement your system instantly. mastery is just a suggestion of an objective goal because its the best one i've heard so far, it is NOT the only objective goal we can implement. i'll be waiting to hear what you have in mind, chakra.

and yes, i know apples goal is to create a ''great phone'' - that is the point!! we ALL want to increase fun in sheeptag, do you seriously think someone has any other agenda in mind? but fun is a meaningless and USELESS term; unless you can break it down into objective components/goals that we can pursuit. and if mastery is one of many components of fun, like you suggest, then you agree with me that we should increase mastery. the instant you start postulating about when mastery stops being a component of fun(or at what degree of mastery), you're back to being subjective, thus your ''objective components of fun'' were subjective all along.



i don't declare that invis increases mastery. if you've read the thread, you'd notice that i told shoop = if he can make a solid case for the invis reducing mastery, we'll remove it. the arguments supporting "invis increases mastery" outweight the counterarguments = this is why we keep the invis. it has NOTHING to do with having an objective way of instantly telling which suggestions are positive; the GOAL is objective, we're debating to which degree a change works towards or against that goal. this doesn't apply to a subjective goal because you can never in your wildest dreams suggest that one side (add vs remove invis) approaches the goal more than the other. why? because we all have different understanding of what constitutes fun. fun can NOT be broken down in objective components. objective goals must be defined if you wan't to develoup a map, just like you said that apple has to define objective goals for phone-develoupment (better speed, more ram, better picturequality etc). not setting objective goals is therefor, logically, equivalent of playing russian roulette. its a crapshoot where you close your eyes and hope something magical happens.

i don't know what else you want me to reply to. please focus on your main points instead of bringing up a shitload.

edit: you and shoop are the ones suggesting that we should add a ''ASDasdASD'' test where the fastest typer gets 20 gold. after all, if someone truly thinks that is fun, how can you possible make an argument against the suggestion if you've implemented the subjective goal of ''fun''? you think its a bad suggestion, itio thinks its a good one. have fun playing russian roulette and hoping you survive

and no, a good phone is not an objective goal. the most obvious example is the choice you have to make is between adding a goal of having many features, or having few features for the sake of simplicity. these are mutually excluse. some people prefer the former, some would prefer the latter.

apple = added an objective goal of simplicity.
Samsung = added an objective goal of many features.

these are objective goals (based on a subjective evaluation of which goal to work towards). THIS is what we have to define for our map. obviously both phones want to create a great phone...



and YES CHAKRA!!! I KNOW REALITY ISNT THIS SIMPLE AND THIS ISNT THE ACTUAL GOALS OF THE DEVELOUPERS; ITS SIMPLY PROVING A POINT

It has always been my argument that the goal is to make the map "fun," and objective component parts are what are specifically targeted. It was the entire premise of why the 2-20 problem was something worth considering. Saying otherwise just shows your inability to consider the other side.

Quote :

if mastery is one of many components of fun, like you suggest, then you agree with me that we should increase mastery. the instant you start postulating about when mastery stops being a component of fun(or at what degree of mastery), you're back to being subjective, thus your ''objective components of fun'' were subjective all along.

The problem that if you change something, even for the sake of mastery, you will be effecting other things. If you increase mastery, you might be decreasing--or increases to an unplayable level--the pace of the game, which is an essential component of the game. Within this argument is the embedded argument that effecting the mastery of something also effects the mastery of something else, making mastery impossible to objectively weigh--especially if we get into the worth of the mastery as it relates to the game fundamentals/premise.

Quote :

i told shoop = if he can make a solid case for the invis reducing mastery, we'll remove it

So to be clear, you changing your previous argument that "the default position is nothing. all additions have to be justified"?
If so, the case was already made--the same case I made: when allies use invisibility, they make you useless. This uselessness leads to a greater negative of mastery than the sole shepherd may gain.

Quote :

fun can NOT be broken down in objective components

Why not?

Quote :

objective goals must be defined if you wan't to develoup a map

want*
So are you saying the map has gone through zero development in the past nine years? It has never had a defined goal--least of all being objective.

Quote :

apple has to define objective goals for phone-develoupment

Apple has defined "objective" sub-goals because they have a team of developers and must divide them somehow. How is "design" an objective measurement?

Quote :

after all, if someone truly thinks that is fun, how can you possible make an argument against the suggestion if you've implemented the subjective goal of ''fun''? you think its a bad suggestion, itio thinks its a good one. have fun playing russian roulette and hoping you survive

First, the mapmaker is, as I've said countless times, the ultimate arbiter. We can't even define a goal, all we can do is suggest one in which the mapmaker may, or may not, adopt--and even from there, they can drop it at any point or apply it spot-idly.

Secondly, I agree that the map has a premise, and this premise must be followed. Typing contest can not be involved in the premise--not matter if it is fun or not. I assume you put it out on the same grounds, yes? So perhaps your goal is more complicated--it includes a premise?
So yours would be: "to increase mastery so long as it stays Sheep Tag." Good luck on defining what Sheep Tag is.

Edit:

Quote :

Samsung = added an objective goal of many features.

So they didn't care about design, simplicity, audio quality, picture, etc? Why didn't they release an updated version of DOS?


Have you ever taken any classes, job, or hobby with the focus of design or engineering? I'm not sure where you pull these examples from.
Both wanted to create a great phone. Both were marketed towards, roughly, the same people (obviously "apple fanboys" and "android fanboys" are exceptions). Samsung placed a greater focus on customization, while Apple focused on conformity. Both cared about customization and conformity, however.

Edit2:
But the phone example is a bit far from the topic. Did DotA have a defined objective goal? LoL? Warcraft 3?

Quote :

CHAKRA: It has always been my argument that the goal is to make the map "fun," and objective component parts are what are specifically targeted. It was the entire premise of why the 2-20 problem was something worth considering. Saying otherwise just shows your inability to consider the other side.

Quote :

AMIR: but by all means, if you can successfully make objective components of fun, we're going to implement your system instantly...i'll be waiting to hear what you have in mind, chakra.

so, can you define these objective components of fun now?

im satisfied with how the rest played out.



btw chakra, im currious. you've done this in several threads recently. you keep getting upset about me not replying to all of your stuff. when do you think that we should stop debating?

edit: and yes, if we implement the objective goal system and there shows to be no arguments/reason for the invis, OBVIOUSLY we're going to remove it...

Since the arguments that invis reduces mastery outlines the arguments that it increases mastery we should remove it.

since the arguments that mirana arrows increases mastery outlines the arguments that it decreases it we should add it.


lets watch shoop choose between mirana arrow and invis now rofl 10 bucks hes not gonna understand WHAT just happened

I choose add mirana arrow and remove invis.

But I am glad we at least agree we should remove invis.

Now, how do we determine what adds mastery objectivly?

also blink-earthquake, doom-guards and pudge hook.

also add an typing test for itio in the middle of the game.

now we'll implement all the stuff shoop has said increases mastery while we remove the stuff he said decreases mastery. me and shoop fully support a test version where all changes are made beer

While I can attempt to from a complete component list of what "fun" is in a single post, it would have to actually be settled in a topic in which the individual parts are argued over. Further, the mapmaker is the ultimate decider.

But I digress:

Fun
First and foremost, fun requires consistency. The game should be fun throughout, no matter what the clock is. This means the game can be really fun at the beginning and end, but should NOT be boring in the middle. Fun later should not be sacrificed for fun now.

Components
Mastery: The game should require practice to play well and the results should show this. If two players are equally skilled*, the one with more practice should give better results. In this context, skill also includes the ability to improve performance (I.E., our two gain from practice at the same rate). For shepherds, this is simply winning faster. For sheep, it is making one's team last longer.
Pace: The pace at which the game should matter. The ideal is effected by some of the limitations we must suffer, mainly latency between individuals, but also limitations of the engine. The easiest way to quantify this is by levels of APM. Generally, low APM indicates a slow and boring game, while very high APM might indicate the game will get tiring very quickly. The number we should aim for can be found by measuring average APM among players in a "good" game (which is, of course, objective, but deciding if a game was fun is relatively easy).
Excitement: While it would be a mistake to make a game with absolutely level moments of excitement, or to aim at making the game chiefly exiting at all points, it is not a bad idea to make them somewhat exiting at all stages. Sheep Tag, particularly, satisfies this by the random* nature in which sheep may be isolated and die. However, excitement is most notable by how individuals react to a situation. Streams of "LOL!"s indicate excitement. When you barely survive a golem or snipe, etc. Low excitement occurs when you have no ability to do anything.

*Skill: "Skill" refers to the ability to perform specific acts related to the game. These acts are set by a defined premise (what ST is and consists of) and are outside the scope of this definition of a goal.
*Random: I don't mean random in nature, I mean random statistically.


And I got bored. :/ I would go on, adding other things, but ye...

Anyways, I can already see two arguments against this:
1) They are all elements of mastery. A slow pace indicates players are all similar. This is blatantly false. Chess is slow paced, but masters greatly outperform Beeeh. On the high range is similar: SC2 undoubtedly requires a much higher APM than ST, and again masters outperform noobs. The pace is more related to the game. The pace has increased over the year as latency values have decreased, the change from 3-hit farms to 2-hit farms a long-awaited upgrade to match a better pace.

2) How do we way between specific components. As you said, how we measure to our goal can be subjective, just as long as the goal is objective. However, you might argue that such a requirement (though this argument pulls a line from arbitrary land) should apply to components, and "excitement" is particularly hard to weigh.
In truth, the balance is hard to quantify, just as it is with mastery. Balancing sheep master against shepherd mastery isn't a game of sums, but of opinion on what matters most. But what we do know is that we can make sheep the art of mastery at the expensive of making shepherds a "type 'kill' every 60 seconds to launch" sort of thing.

I will expand on my definition of fun when I'm in the mood for essaying, though. :/
I don't care about this argument ATM. Read on.


You didn't answer my question. I find it more important than this BS:
But the phone example is a bit far from the topic. Did DotA have a defined objective goal? LoL? Warcraft 3?


EDitZ:

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

since the arguments that mirana arrows increases mastery outlines the arguments that it decreases it we should add it.


lets watch shoop choose between mirana arrow and invis now rofl 10 bucks hes not gonna understand WHAT just happened

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

also blink-earthquake, doom-guards and pudge hook.

also add an typing test for itio in the middle of the game.

now we'll implement all the stuff shoop has said increases mastery while we remove the stuff he said decreases mastery. me and shoop fully support a test version where all changes are made beer

Did Amir just concede that stupidity comes from the "mastery is only thing that matters" argument?

Except I am not in favour of adding everything that adds mastery, thats just you amir.

shoop is in favor of removing objects that reduce mastery, but not in favor of adding objects that increase mastery.


it seems like consistency doesn't work even when you apply an objective goal no wonder shoop dislikes the mastery method rofl ^^

chakra i proved how idiotic your position is

Quote :

10 bucks hes not gonna understand WHAT just happened

BINGO BINGO ^^

Not sure if Amir realizes he just shot himself in the face.

Can you answer my queStiONZ? I've only had one in past three posts. Well, besides in question of your suicide.

Amir, I am not in favour of anything of that.

But you are in favour of removing and adding things based on what reduces and increases mastery (if I understood your position right), then it follows that we should add doomguard that increases mastery and remove invis that reduces mastery.

lol.. shoop is completely lost at this point.




okok, lets just take care of chakra now.

so you've given up the argument that u can define fun in an objective way? interesting. so i guess the post i made 12 posts ago or so still stands, as your counter was that we CAN define fun objectively.

as for the second question: i dont know what goals dota, lol and wc3s develoupers had. however, you're AGAIN making a logical fallacy by assuming that if we find one game that turned out good without objective goals, that means that objective goals arent better than subjective goals. remember chakra, if you're going to try and ridicule the opponent, make sure that your arguments aren't the laughing-magnet of the thread ^^





this subject is kinda too advanced for both of you. me and the people who followed the debate will conclude that objective goals should be implemented and that i won the debate. you two can believe whatever you want. thanks for your time, gentlemen.

Amir wrote:

objective goals must be defined if you wan't to develoup a map

So was this a lie?

Amir wrote:

you're AGAIN making a logical fallacy by assuming that if we find one game that turned out good without objective goals, that means that objective goals arent better than subjective goals

Actually, I'm pointing to evidence. Can you name one computer game in the history of Allah that grossed more than $12 that had a defined objective goal, such as "mastery"?

I have this theory none of them did it 'cause it is obvious it's retarding. ^^

Quote :

So was this a lie?

no

So Sheep Tag is required to set an objective goal, but other games do just fine without it?

Can you explain?

just stfu.

nothing can be explained to your thick skull, and you repeat questions that have obvious answers to everyone except you and shoop. you're not qualified for this level of debate. take it however you want, but yeah...less "bacon-in-the-basement" brush ^^

Good argument.

g00Dz ThinGZ My IdeAZ ConFinZed BEEr!