R55Max
Auto-translated
Message from Wicc:
Not necessary, of course. It's perfectly possible to understand a game you're not strong in.
I wrote a mass of good articles on StarCraft, even though at my peak I was an average player skill-wise. And I wrote the bulk of the articles after I had already quit, meaning I couldn't even beat average players anymore. Yes, sometimes this led to mistakes, and people corrected me, but overall the texts were quite adequate.
But few manage this. And in your current state, you're clearly not among them (well, objectively, no offense). That's why you're being offered to at least reach the level of an average player, maybe then your analytical abilities (if you have any) will yield adequate results.
I'll repeat, the main thing is the correct line of thought. If it's incorrect, it makes sense to look for reasons - whether it's a lack of skill, brains, or something else.
Take, for instance, your discussion with Stinger about morale. I disagree with Stinger's position; IMO he goes to extremes. But our differences are quantitative, in assessing the degree of influence (I think it's higher), not in the essence of the issue. Here we can discuss constructively and perhaps even reach a consensus (even if it turns out to be multi-component). Your position, however, is purely wrong, and your arguments only emphasize this fact. Hence constructive discussion is difficult here.
Similarly, regarding spectacle - it's good that you acknowledge the importance of this aspect of the game and look for factors that influence it. But whether due to a lack of experience working with this issue, or due to initial bias, your conclusions turn out to be wrong, and again your arguments only underscore this.
I myself have simply analyzed and discussed this issue a lot in relation to different computer games (and traditional sports as well), so I see flaws with the naked eye, much like an experienced musician hears obvious false notes in a melody.
The specific nature of discussing spectacle issues is that there is little subjectivity here; you can't say "there's no accounting for taste"; spectacle is a quite objective parameter that can even be measured numerically. Hence the corresponding approach to opinions here.
Here's my ancient article, one of the first steps in esports journalism - http://cyberfight.ru/site/columns/56/article_18911/ , which exactly analyzes the issues of spectacle in an esports game. I glanced through it now; there's a ton of naivety and clumsiness, of course, but all the key factors are marked surprisingly correctly (patted myself on the back there). And the main thing is that subsequent events proved the correctness of this approach.
Mostly, the questions concern the link.
1. Removed the point.
2.
However, the next stage of development does exist, and that is the path of professionalization of esports. Many imply by this merely the opportunity to make money from games, but in my opinion, professional sport is a system that links together players, spectators, sponsors, and organizers. That is, a regular competitive calendar, tickets to matches, advertising, broadcasts, refereeing and coaching work, and in the long term, specialized training for young players. And the main requirement for growth and development is self-sufficiency, i.e., the ability to earn money without relying on external sources. And there is only one internal source of money - the spectators; they buy the tickets, and advertising and sponsors target them.
My personal views and outlook on the game coincide absolutely mirror-like with this. What was I writing a few pages ago? Wasn't I talking about this on the Tribune and on the topic I created? There isn't a single new point. Because it's obvious.
The problem of esports development as a whole is too large to consider within a single article, so for a meaningful discussion, one needs to limit oneself to considering some sufficiently narrow part of it
It is precisely by considering each narrow part separately that one can arrive at a solution. As I said, this is the discussion of all the nuances of the game separately (SoD + WoG)
This happens due to the absence of some fundamental facts to rely on, and with a weak axiomatic base, it is difficult to conduct a meaningful argument; the use of dubious arguments based on someone's authority begins
Perhaps this concerns me as well, but still, I try to arrive at an axiom, if not through experience, then by building an argumentative base.
. Therefore, I do not rule out that another person might look at the same problem differently; that is normal, even more so, it should be so. However, given two different points of view, they can be checked for compliance with the real situation and the more correct one identified, so such a dispute will be of a practical, not "religious" nature, like most disputes about computer games. True, such a check is, of course, only possible in the future, but nevertheless, its very possibility in principle moves the discussion to another level
Here you allow for and even praise the existence of a different opinion. Now about practice. How can you prove the unsoundness of certain worldview positions without having the opportunity to test them in practice? And as you've long understood, my goal is to unite SoD and WoG.
And it is precisely about the long-term perspective that I speak, not about the momentary presentation of advantageous positions.
Besides what exists at the moment, it makes sense to think about how it could be. That is, what would be good to change in Star and War if they were tailored specifically for spectators. Moreover, in many ways, such reasoning is even more useful, because developers will face exactly this task in the future.
Why do you, as a game developer, not have such a thought? And when, for example, I talk about it, you dismiss it. Apparently, it really is very difficult to take this step back.
The role of randomness. This is random damage and random item drops
You don't need to destroy everything, it's enough to give an assessment of playability. Suppose during the deal you have one advantage, and the other has a counterargument to your advantage (but it's achievable by another route; this is the theory of chaotic balance), so why ban the layout? It's another matter whether the opponent can take advantage of it. And that's already a question of skill, which also includes game foresight.
I read the interview - I'll say one thing: the guy was very offended by his loss, because he beat everyone and wasn't ready for defeat. Yes, he was unlucky, but in such moments they say "This is football." And anything can happen, regardless of the opponent's strength. Underestimation, carelessness, lack of luck - a component of the game. Then he says, the boxer deserved the victory, but the game isn't fair. Such nonsense! Where does a fair game exist in professional sports? Name one? (One that has no behind-the-scenes factors at all). There are no such games; everyone tries to use every allowed trick. Rule violations are punished with penalties, but they will never stop breaking them. Simulation - if a penalty is earned with its help, the player pulled the team through. Qualities like turning the other cheek if you're hit are not valued. And the fact that someone managed to dec...ive the referee - isn't that imbalance? No! It's a war between two sides, where not only the strongest but also the cunning win... When a defending defender tries to kick the ball in such a way that there's no reason to award a penalty, and the attacker manages to trip himself up and fall dramatically - penalty, the defender lost, even though he didn't foul.
Too much emphasis on the grief of a boy who lost, poor thing, by the will of fortune. In real sports, there are thousands of such moments every day, and in football, there are hundreds of times more than in SoD! And nothing terrible. This is sport. Fates are broken, even deaths occur. But here one must practically cry. Imagine his bad luck compared to a volleyball player's broken little finger, who couldn't play the World Championship final and didn't receive additional huge prize money for winning, and because of his non-participation, the team simply lost, spoiling the reputation not only of the players whose places will be taken by winners from the best clubs in the world, but also of the country as a whole, which will be known worldwide. So whose problems are bigger? Nobody needs identical balance; what's needed is spectacle and blood, the blood of old-timers and the strongest players in the world. In any sport.
It seems obvious to me that in the esports of the future, game changes will not occur, and if they do, they will be rare and for objective reasons. An example is big sports; the same football has been watched for over 100 years, and rule changes are in the nature of patches, but by no means a revision of the fundamentals.
That's exactly it; fundamentals must exist. SoD is the foundation; WoG is a different game. Hockey players on ice don't play field hockey.
To summarize, the general idea is this - most players look at games only through their own eyes, through the prism of their own tastes and habits. However, from the perspective of esports' prospects, this view must be replaced by the view from the spectator's side, which is more important in monetary terms and also lends itself better to analysis.
This is precisely why gameplay problems and what you call the unsoundness of merging the two versions fade into the background and beyond.
Everything has a solution, it's important to move towards it.
What I understood from the article is the contradictory nature of your moralizing postulates on the Tribune, strung upon the self-purpose of shutting down new ideas in my person with your own worldview positions within yourself, especially given that you, having read this article, agreed with it after many years. And this happens because it's hard to admit that you need to take a step back.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...