Post by jaedrik on Dec 26, 2013 17:49:26 GMT -5
So. I made this post on Forumside.
ViXeN, I've been just sitting here listening, and I really want you to know something. You're not convincing me. I really am trying, I really am, to see it from your perspective, I read all your posts in the last few pages and tried to reason through them, but I've also read the responses to your posts.
First of all, you are arrogant, there's no two ways about it. Arrogance isn't speaking about what is true, arrogance is having a high estimation of ones self worth, even if it is true that one is skilled in a department. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your patronizing language and pride is turning off some people to your side of the debate, but I saw something in your argument however little it was, so please try to see something in ours.
Compared to the other games you've shown images from, PlanetSide 2 has a much slower TTK, even with the 2x headshots on the whole. CoD (overall) takes 2-5 bullets to kill, Battlefield (overall) takes 3-6 bullets to kill, and I'd wager that those games generally have higher RoF guns on average. Battlefield also has the 2x HS multiplier. PlanetSide 2 takes on average 5-8 or so bullets to kill. I'm disregarding snipers and shotties for this example, though, explosives too, all of which I'd also wager are more dangerous and less plenteous in the other games. Except shotguns in CoD and some of the Battlefields, those suck. Comparatively, PlanetSide 2 has, de facto, a slower TTK relative to most other modern FPS games.
Second of all, did you even read our posts, or even my posts? Now, I don't wish to patronize you as you have us, but it doesn't seem like you did, all you seemed to do was just glaze over them and brashly type out a response with that wild-eyed smirk or smug grin, or even a glare and a frown, whichever is more accurate.
I'll try to expand upon mine and my compatriot's arguments here. No, this isn't nuclear physics, you're right, but this is some form of philosophy and still incredibly comprehensive.
Skill is itself relative, and the objective expressions of skill that make it a common denomination (k/d, accuracy, all other imaginable stats) often are confounded to give an absolute and perfect image of the relative skill level of players, nevertheless they help one to lay hold of and know what is true, however incomplete or imperfect.
Here, we will use skill in a long-term sense, that is the overall skill of an individual, disrupting supposed "luck" affecting the metric expressions.
Skill can, however, be placed upon a few principles. The first of these principles is consistency in strategy. This is the ability of the player to perform along the guidelines (or forms) that they set up before they actually enter into combat. Ones skill effectively increases the more complete and larger number there are of correct guidelines there are. Things such as "I will pop my NMG at this time when encountering an enemy" or "I will reload only at these times so as to ensure not reloading too soon or too late" or "If these things happen to overwhelm me, I will try to run away and reset positioning to the neutral game" or "I will go for headshots". Note that these do not have to be conscious to be schematics for regular action, I'd wager that most people just develop good habits over time in FPS games without thinking much about them that lends to their strategic consideration.
In this way it is said there are no 'correct' strategies in a supposedly entirely physical or 'objective' sense, but this is a key mistake many make. We may make objective standards from the objective through the natural abilities of the intellect, though in this case they evolve over time. The formation of the most effective strategies at any given time is called "Metagame". Formation is taken in an active sense, that is, at all times and everywhere the metagame is being actuated, or created, from formality and efficiency and materiality, it is ever changing and can be expanded upon at any moment once one fully realizes, accepts, and spreads a new schematic strategy or brings a greater degree of consistency in execution. It is also said that a larger metagame means more emergent experiences, in addition to an ever increasing skill ceiling. There is no quantitative measure--how can there be?--but there is a qualitative effect we can 'measure' with our minds.
Consistency in strategy is based on the blueprints of the player (be it conscious or not), or the formal archetype of each situation, which is nigh impossible to measure or even imagine at any given time, so it must depend on another type of skill to be given expression into more quantitative metrics (kpm, accuracy, etc.), which also depends heavily on if one has the right strategies for the metagame of the time.
Consistency in execution is the efficient cause which governs the expression from form (strategic schema) to effect (that which is observed by the intelligence in achieving the interaction). This can also be called tactics, the effects of which are regularly measured by the metrics of KD etc.
There is a separate execution which is the material execution, that is, the actual movement of the hands and eyes as they interact with the expression of strategy that is comprehended and translated through the intelligence (form, ultimate) by the mind (efficient and material) to cause the material.
The best way to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the qualitative differences between skill levels is to develop a sound causal analysis and support the causal analysis with relevant data and the proper analysis thereof.
The key assumptions of our argument are as follows:
These could be strengthened past assumptions in numerous ways:
These are the conclusions we draw in accord with the preceding principles of strategy, metagame, and execution;
There are many more points here, as per the parts of Aegie's--and others!--arguments I did not incorporate, but I'm sure they're easy enough to point out and allot with supporting evidence and causal analysis. As well I'm probably not thinking deep enough, this is a shallow overview of the many arguments that could be made and formed into one.
Now, here is the claim that headshots so often occur without purposeful human action, and that their large amount of appearance somehow 'dumbs the game down'. I am taking this to imply that not only is there smaller metagame one must make on a strategic basis, but he also cannot vary the execution more than before. Additionally, this means that the skill ceiling (The theoretical limit which a player cannot pass on his journey through the graph of skill over time) has been lowered and the skill floor (the Y point entry of the player at time zero) has been raised.
To strengthen your argument, ViXeN, you must first demonstrate the changes do dumb the game down with relevant data.
You must show that
I'm sure there's many more I haven't thought of, but I hope by now you see the task before you, and will no longer rely on your personal experience so heavily, but rather with a discerning mind go forward and attempt to ascertain and spread the truth.
Whadayathink?
ViXeN said:
This isn't nuclear physics here, its pretty easy to comprehend.ViXeN, I've been just sitting here listening, and I really want you to know something. You're not convincing me. I really am trying, I really am, to see it from your perspective, I read all your posts in the last few pages and tried to reason through them, but I've also read the responses to your posts.
First of all, you are arrogant, there's no two ways about it. Arrogance isn't speaking about what is true, arrogance is having a high estimation of ones self worth, even if it is true that one is skilled in a department. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your patronizing language and pride is turning off some people to your side of the debate, but I saw something in your argument however little it was, so please try to see something in ours.
Compared to the other games you've shown images from, PlanetSide 2 has a much slower TTK, even with the 2x headshots on the whole. CoD (overall) takes 2-5 bullets to kill, Battlefield (overall) takes 3-6 bullets to kill, and I'd wager that those games generally have higher RoF guns on average. Battlefield also has the 2x HS multiplier. PlanetSide 2 takes on average 5-8 or so bullets to kill. I'm disregarding snipers and shotties for this example, though, explosives too, all of which I'd also wager are more dangerous and less plenteous in the other games. Except shotguns in CoD and some of the Battlefields, those suck. Comparatively, PlanetSide 2 has, de facto, a slower TTK relative to most other modern FPS games.
Second of all, did you even read our posts, or even my posts? Now, I don't wish to patronize you as you have us, but it doesn't seem like you did, all you seemed to do was just glaze over them and brashly type out a response with that wild-eyed smirk or smug grin, or even a glare and a frown, whichever is more accurate.
I'll try to expand upon mine and my compatriot's arguments here. No, this isn't nuclear physics, you're right, but this is some form of philosophy and still incredibly comprehensive.
Skill is itself relative, and the objective expressions of skill that make it a common denomination (k/d, accuracy, all other imaginable stats) often are confounded to give an absolute and perfect image of the relative skill level of players, nevertheless they help one to lay hold of and know what is true, however incomplete or imperfect.
Here, we will use skill in a long-term sense, that is the overall skill of an individual, disrupting supposed "luck" affecting the metric expressions.
Skill can, however, be placed upon a few principles. The first of these principles is consistency in strategy. This is the ability of the player to perform along the guidelines (or forms) that they set up before they actually enter into combat. Ones skill effectively increases the more complete and larger number there are of correct guidelines there are. Things such as "I will pop my NMG at this time when encountering an enemy" or "I will reload only at these times so as to ensure not reloading too soon or too late" or "If these things happen to overwhelm me, I will try to run away and reset positioning to the neutral game" or "I will go for headshots". Note that these do not have to be conscious to be schematics for regular action, I'd wager that most people just develop good habits over time in FPS games without thinking much about them that lends to their strategic consideration.
In this way it is said there are no 'correct' strategies in a supposedly entirely physical or 'objective' sense, but this is a key mistake many make. We may make objective standards from the objective through the natural abilities of the intellect, though in this case they evolve over time. The formation of the most effective strategies at any given time is called "Metagame". Formation is taken in an active sense, that is, at all times and everywhere the metagame is being actuated, or created, from formality and efficiency and materiality, it is ever changing and can be expanded upon at any moment once one fully realizes, accepts, and spreads a new schematic strategy or brings a greater degree of consistency in execution. It is also said that a larger metagame means more emergent experiences, in addition to an ever increasing skill ceiling. There is no quantitative measure--how can there be?--but there is a qualitative effect we can 'measure' with our minds.
Consistency in strategy is based on the blueprints of the player (be it conscious or not), or the formal archetype of each situation, which is nigh impossible to measure or even imagine at any given time, so it must depend on another type of skill to be given expression into more quantitative metrics (kpm, accuracy, etc.), which also depends heavily on if one has the right strategies for the metagame of the time.
Consistency in execution is the efficient cause which governs the expression from form (strategic schema) to effect (that which is observed by the intelligence in achieving the interaction). This can also be called tactics, the effects of which are regularly measured by the metrics of KD etc.
There is a separate execution which is the material execution, that is, the actual movement of the hands and eyes as they interact with the expression of strategy that is comprehended and translated through the intelligence (form, ultimate) by the mind (efficient and material) to cause the material.
The best way to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the qualitative differences between skill levels is to develop a sound causal analysis and support the causal analysis with relevant data and the proper analysis thereof.
The key assumptions of our argument are as follows:
- Nanoweave, before the patch, was the de facto infantry vs infantry choice for any discerning mind.
- Headshots do not often occur without significant player influence to sway probability that would otherwise overwhelmingly favor not hitting the head.
- Many players had the strategy of aiming for center mass for their initial and proceeding shots.
These could be strengthened past assumptions in numerous ways:
- Provide an overview of suit slot equip percentages before and after the patch overall.
- Provide data that shows the differentiation of headshot hit percentages in infantry combat across skill levels.
- Provide an example (say, Orion or MSW-R) of no-influence probability of hitting the head after a center mass shot.
These are the conclusions we draw in accord with the preceding principles of strategy, metagame, and execution;
- The Nanoweave and Flak changes created a broader metagame and emergent experience in suit slot choice with deeper cost-benefit analysis required to take full stock of the suit options and likely encounters with.
- The Nanoweave changes made headshots more significant, raising the skill ceiling without raising the skill floor.
- The Nanoweave changes in no way negatively affected skilled players who have the consistent strategy of attempting to land bullets on the head.
There are many more points here, as per the parts of Aegie's--and others!--arguments I did not incorporate, but I'm sure they're easy enough to point out and allot with supporting evidence and causal analysis. As well I'm probably not thinking deep enough, this is a shallow overview of the many arguments that could be made and formed into one.
Now, here is the claim that headshots so often occur without purposeful human action, and that their large amount of appearance somehow 'dumbs the game down'. I am taking this to imply that not only is there smaller metagame one must make on a strategic basis, but he also cannot vary the execution more than before. Additionally, this means that the skill ceiling (The theoretical limit which a player cannot pass on his journey through the graph of skill over time) has been lowered and the skill floor (the Y point entry of the player at time zero) has been raised.
To strengthen your argument, ViXeN, you must first demonstrate the changes do dumb the game down with relevant data.
You must show that
- the headshot hit percentages for all skill levels are relatively similar, and that
- nanoweave was not the de facto choice for the majority of circumstances, while
- games with low time to kill take overwhelmingly less skill in the ways demonstrated above.
I'm sure there's many more I haven't thought of, but I hope by now you see the task before you, and will no longer rely on your personal experience so heavily, but rather with a discerning mind go forward and attempt to ascertain and spread the truth.
Whadayathink?
