You're right, Egalitarian doesn't mean what I think it meant, but you are indeed elitist.

It's not about majority, it's about recognizing good ideas, and sifting through bad ones. Your example, I agree, is a bad one. Some things will become more clear with time, others won't. It is also about acknowledging that there are more valid perspectives than just the "1337". There are things to be gained by putting time into something, and looking closely at it, and things to be gained from new perspectives, that take in the whole thing at once. Not every postulated idea will be correct, that doesn't change the fact that people who are not pros will often observe things that are problems. And confining it to an introverted community will destroy a game with potential.

And honestly, I don't see what you're trying to say with that analogy. What are you comparing what to?

I posted on this topic long ago, pages and pages now, havent read the hole thing, but this post here is right.

Let me give u guys a link: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/

It began as little articles and in the end it became a book, a very good if I may add. Read it, "pro" or "noob" player, we will all understand better what happens in other ppls mind... when it comes to games. The author focus on Street Fighter arcade game, but it covers all games, for sure. Have fun reading. If u don't want to read the full thing, at least this article alone: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

Or at the very least, the last topic on the latter link "Its too Good"

Have fun guys, gl in all your games.

 

I think Miya has already posed the argument adaquately. Tactics should be balanced around the maximum reasonable potential of those tactics, otherwise known as the "highest level of play." If a tactic is fair in a game between experts, then it is fair assuming near optimal play from both sides, then it is fair in general. If a tactic is not fair in a game between experts, then it is not fair assuming near optimal play from both sides, then it is not fair in general.

Balance cannot be concerned with whether tactics are not "fair" in games between intermediate or beginner players. In those types of games, the balance is there and the counters are readily available, but the players lack the ability to use them. This is the player's fault, not the game's, which is why the game must not change (be rebalanced) to compensate for suboptimal play.  

Just look at any game with seemingly powerful strategies. SSBM Shiek, SC2 Cassandra Deathfist, WC3 Hunt Rush, GW Airspike, the list goes on. These are all strategies that beginner and intermediate players have difficulty countering. But were not rebalanced, nor should they have been. Why? Because at a higher level of play, those strategies are perfectly counterable and actually turn out to be quite tame in comparison to other strategies that inhabit that level of play. In this way it is clear that only an expert has a clear enough understanding of the game to offer insightful balance opinions about what is really powerful, weak, right, or wrong with the game.  

Elitist? Yes. Correct? Absolutely. 

A game that is balanced, is balanced for any level of player. Not that players cannot become better, or should not lose to better players, but one who enters new to a game or genre has as much chance as any other new player when playing a new player, regardless of the character they choose. This is the difference between a well balanced game, and one that is not. Simple apertures for gameplay for any given character are important, if these things are lacking, not only does it discourage playing the game, but it also undermines balance fundamentally, since simplistic tactics have as much effect in game as complex ones, this runs contrary to a game having heights tactics; If one can rely upon a simple tactic to maintain themselves at higher levels of play, then there is an imbalance, a failure of the game to take on depth in the face of complex strategies and tactics. There is an upper threshold for games, but also a lower threshold, both are important.

Saying the game is fair based on a single perspective is fundamentally faulty, there are many people who play this game, they are as entitled to a balanced game as anyone, simple apertures for gameplay have to be available, as well as sufficient depth for there to be complex gameplay.

 

If the game is balanced for the hardcore playerbase, the casual playerbase will be able to play a balanced game. If the game is balanced for the casual playerbase, there is no certainty that it will be playable at the highest level.

You've been reading too much Sirlin imo. The number of complex moves in Demigod is really low. Chaining skills like stuns/grasp/silence, and group bursting are the closest it gets to the very complexcombos in arcade fighting games. The difference in player skill revolves around positioning and map control as much as it does executing those team moves. With this in mind, the game-deciding moves are all just as open to a new player as they are to an experienced one.

The simple moves are powerful anyway, moves like Sedna healing a teammate, UB grasping a target for a hammer slam, and Erebus swarming to stun a fleeing enemy are going to play a giant part in the game and they are both simple and easy to carry out. This is what decides the game, how well the player uses the simple techniques, and they are open to both pro and noob alike.

Stuff like "Do I push left lane of Cataract to draw our opponents to that side, silence and then port back to base while my teammates run up the other lane to backdoor" can have a greater effect on the outcome of the game than, "Do I pounce now or later", but just because it's a more complex tactic doesn't mean a new player can't do it. There's no limitation based on micro, only on strategic thought and teamwork.

Casual players think Rook towers are OP, most of the serious players I've encountered agree they are not. If we catered to the casual crowd's demands for a nerf, Rook would disappear from the game completely for many of the serious players.

Just read that article and became intrested in this conversation.

From sirlins playing to win:

"I've talked about how the expert player is not bound by rules of "honor" or "cheapness" and simply plays to maximize his chances of winning"

"There is a gray area here I feel I should point out."

"Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken""

"Akuma is a boss character, never meant to be played on even ground with the other characters. He's only accessible via an annoying, long code. Akuma is not like a tower in an RTS that is accidentally too powerful or a gun in an FPS that does too much damage. Akuma is a god-mode that can't coexist with the rest of the game."

"If you are playing to win, you should play the game everyone else is playing, not the home-made Akuma vs. Akuma game that no one plays"

Everyone who plays that game seriously should seemingly play as Akuma but they chose not to because "its not fun".. An argument that many here have thought of as worth nothing just became the biggest reason to ban a character in pro games.

On first glance i think he fell into his own definition of a scrub and doesnt play to win if he doesnt choose Akuma to play with because its lame.. Facet could you point out any good points in the article that you choose to adore? Of course there are many things which i do feel the same about but those are pretty everyday thinking like "if you practice youll get better" but you dont need to read an article to understand that..

I think it is still to be seen if doubles are OP. If the game is still alive some year from now and all the best teams play doubles then it seems they indeed are stronger because they choose to play them. But for now we cannot know.

Ok it might not take a year but you get my point

Akuma is akin to an exploit in online games, he's god mode. People don't skybox in scrims when playing Source Engine games, you get banned from the server if you do. Doubles are not even close to this kind of situation.

None of the best teams now play doubles (that I know of).

I suggest reading the rest of the articles in Sirlin's series where he basically detracts most of what is said in the first article (that is always the only one spouted in conversations like these by gamers e-hung like donkeys in a porn movie).

The point of this thread is to try and force people to play the way you and some other people want. That stinks of arrogance.

You say i would enable idiocy, which is wrong. The sole reason im posting here is to stop it. I would enable people to play the way they want tho. Not just the 'scrubs', but your kind of egomaniacs as well. Theres simply no reason to question anyone's rules as long as they do not try to force those onto others.. which is not the case for those no double games, but definitely the case with your kind of 'mine is the only right way to play' types.

So casual players are not playing to win? The fact that someone sets up some rules - rules which bind both sides of a game - does not mean they are not playing to win. It means they are not playing by the original rules. Thats it and nothing more.

You assume that being casual and competitive are exclusive terms which is simply bullshit. The fact that some players have an actual life to live, besides playing demigod 24/7 does not mean that they are less motivated to win a game. It simply means they have less time to waste on the game, which will eventually turn into skill difference obviously, but skill <> motivation.

About balance: The idea that only those born at 13:37 should be allowed to tell which way a game should be going is so utterly stupid that i can't even believe someone had the balls to write that down.

Whether or not doubles are OP is not the issue, because some are and some arent, but they each can be beaten - albeit you will have to sweat blood - if you choose the right tactics. Noone asked GPG/SD to ban doubles, that is none that i can remember. Its the simple question of:

Why shouldn't people be able to play by their own rules without being called names by the elitist pricks.

Why does it hurt some people's ego so much, when the new guy hosts his game with the simple rule that there be no doubles.

I consider myself a decent, maybe even a good player.. but quite frankly: i want to have nothing to do with the kind of elitist scum that keeps posting trash into this thread. Kinda sad tho, that for some people: newbies are a simple kind of domestic animal they 'sadly' need for their game to survive and also for food.

A newbie for me is a potential friend and an eventual opponent. Am i not competitive enough because i do not try to bite through the throat of every other player I see? I guess this makes me a noob in the eyes of those 1337 people and so be it.. i will proudly wear that title as it is worth a lot more right now, than to be called a pro.

It splits the community for no good reason. The house rules played by inexperienced players will either become the standard because they are the majority, or they will die out when those players find they can't get a game with their particular rule set enforced in the case that they are the minority.

I could make games that are assassin only, or starting gold high, and it would be a bad move for the same reason. If everyone plays the same game we all reap the benefits, if theres a sizable subset playing this house rule games become harder to find for both groups.

Similar to the "5 min no rush" rubbish in SupCom.

There is some truth in this argument, even though i see it as a natural progression of games. The community is always adding/changing rules, to balance or to even the playing field. If the majority starts to play by these, that means that there is a demand for it, - and in this case, that would mean that doubles are indeed a problem.  If it is only a few people use, then theres no issue whatsoever and it is merely the desires of some select players that are manifesting in this way.

Theres plenty of games with different settings anyway, you just do not see them mentioned in the game title, but have to check for them when you enter a game. So in this sense, we could argue that any game with non default settings is a similar, if not even bigger offense against the community as the no doubles.

I bet if everyone with custom game settings - that is: non default settings - would tag their games, the majority would turn out to be custom. Lol.. even the ESL rules are custom in that they forbid the use of favor items for example.. at least that was the last version i saw.

So we are - again - back to the issue of why rules made by some people are acceptable, and rules by others are not.

As for your assassin only argument.. While i havent seen such a game yet, randoms only i did see already. As long as the house rules are limited to certain minor aspects of the game (and quite frankly: limiting the use of doubles is hardly a big issue, especially considering that they are a rare choice to begin with) then they are nothing but a little bit of variety.

Randoms only is something you could be worried about, as that is far from being minor and based on other games, THAT ACTUALLY has a chance to become a global phenomenon over time.

Additionally: if you are that good, then playing with slightly different rules will in fact only help you, as you are more likely be able to adept to those than the 'casual' player with less experience. The people usually crying about non-standard (that is rules they are not used to) rules are the ones who base their gameplay around specific tricks that can only happen in specific scenarios. They are crying because it is the knowledge of these tricks that give them an edge and not necessarily their actual skill.. so when it comes to adaptation and skill, they might actually lose.

These combinations im talking about are not only doubles. They can be any demigod/skill/item combo you can come up with if it is the cornerstone of the strategy you are using. The moment your strategy revolves around a combination of things and not general planning and teamwork, you are prone to be hit by rule limitations.

So am i against house rules? No .. definitely not. For me, they add variation to the game. I'm especially at peace with them as im not forced to play by them. I can just host my own game with the rules I like, when those hosted by others are not to my liking.

Hats off tho for being the first person in this thread on the pro-doubles party who actually provided a sensible argument.

He still shoots himself in the foot by saying that this is how things are except in this case where even serious players think its wrong.

There are also many comments on the article that he cannot or does not answer approprietly to in my opinion. But enough of that.

Read the other two articles a moment ago and i have to say that i found that something was wrong i the second but that came up in the third. Made much more sense now. Was nice reading

Though the first part still feels wrong..

 

As for the topic i agree with many things csebal said.

Aye, the other two articles are much better, but they aren't as popular among hardcore gamers.

The second and third articles are basically just clarifications of the first one, which is why everyone cites it. That article has been up for years and people still post new comments on it, so I think we can forgive him for not answering every single comment after all this time. I personally don't understand why everyone gets hung up on the Akuma example. He even said that he included it on purpose because it was so supportive of his points, so its not like someone has dug up an example that he would have preferred to brush under the carpet. Akuma is obviously a cheat code (a Demigod equivalent would be if you could enter type some code into the chat and gain +1000% move speed, attack speed, cap speed, damage, infinite mana and instant cooldowns), and cheating is outside the scope of the game, therefore outside the scope of playing to win.

This is a mess of unsubstantiated claims, so I don't even know where to begin arguing, other than to just repeat what I said before. A game that is balanced at the highest level of play is balanced in and of itself because both sides have a fair chance of winning assuming near optimal play from both sides. This is the very definition of balance. There is no other. 

This is a fair statement, however it doesn't take into consideration a few elements about how Higher Level balance works. For example, in World of Warcraft, the melee and armour dependant class called the Warrior is balanced as you've described - for the higher levels - however because they are very dependant on their armour, until they reach the higher levels of Gear they're actually weaker than their fellow classes of a same level. Balancing for the higher end is a great way to ensure an even hand - there really is no way of arguing this - however if you take into consideration the tricks the higher level players use that casual players may not and balance certain elements of the game around this, you may cause an imbalance at lower skill levels. The idea of balance is to provide an even playing field and you need to be careful that by leveling a higher skilled playing filled you're not unbalancing a lower skill playing field. It's been the debate of mutliplayer games since they've existed, and Demigod is no different. This isn't an attack on the debate in this thread - I've said my peace - just a point I haven't seen covered yet.

Your arguement is fail for the simple reason it's the other's who try to will their rules on other people.

It has nothing to do with being elitist. It has to do with idiots coming in to my game bringing their absurd rules. I don't care if a newby plays in my game, I just have a HUGE problem with people being completely irrational. Making up silly rules with no backing, is stupid.

Doesn't hurt my ego at all, but again, you consider your opinion of other people actual facts for an arguement in this discussion.

I doubt you are, the way you argue makes me think you're very bad at thinking on your toes. You want nothing to do with us because you can't come up with any rationality other than OMG LET PEOPEL DO WHAT THEY WANTZZZZZZZ. That's not an arguement, that's OPINION. Again- We question WHY people come up with general rules to things there should not be rules to. If they can't come up with a half decent answer, than it's absurd, period.

Oh god, climb down off your high horse man. Check my games, I play with newbies on my team all the freaking time. I even teach my opponents how to play, while they're playing me. I have nothing against newbies, and neither does anyone here. Our problem is with people being ignorant and stupid, the only title you deserve.

That is the issue most people who come up with these ridiculous rules have.

Default skirmish settings = the rules. People generally find rules acceptable, when they make LOGICAL RATIONAL SENSE, all of which, doubles do not. This is one point you continuously avoid. Yes people can play whatever they want, but the idea they create these rules that are irrational and expect everyone to follow them is ridiculous.

I've argued against random-only games, but im not going to bring that up.

That isn't it at all. But I can jump to generalities about why you defend these people to. You have no basis for this comment though, and so support for your arguement is again fail.  

This is ridiculous, and makes no point. Yes taking options out of the game restricts game play. You want an award for realizing that? We could reduce the game to the rule of only regulus. Would that be logical?

I'm still waiting for you to make one.

 

absoutly /signed @WickedBear

 

Yes.. im sure that starting a server that reads: no doubles is forcing you to play on that server, thereby forcing their rules onto you...    But hey, it is me and my argument that is failing, sure. Do you really want me to continue? So be it.

Frankly, i could have made more corrections in that single snippet above, but hey.. it has nothing to do with being an elitist. After all, that is merely used as a synonym for "egoistic pr*ck". So i shall use that term from now on, if you find elitist to be that bad.

I seriously doubt it is players coming to YOUR games demanding that there be no doubles. If they are, they are no better than you. If you consider every game to be YOUR game tho, thats a different issue and asks a big question: shouldn't you see a doctor?

Yes, i do consider my opinion of other people actual facts. you are right.. that why that line was formulated as a question and not a statement. You can't even read, let alone understand a word i'm writing, but you insist on arguing about it. Well.. insis on TRYING to argue about it.. for that you would have to use actual arguments, which you do not seem to like that much.


It is your right to doubt it, i dont really care...

That "rationality" actually works a lot better than the one you seem to be so fond of: OMG PEOPEL DO WHAT I SAY CUZ I KNOW BETTER.


You keep turning that question around, even though random player A playing a game with random player B is not really your business as long as you are not involved. Yet you want them to play by YOUR rules and demand THEM (or US, or even ME) to explain to you why it is rational to play by those different rules.

I doubt you will understand it, but for those who do here is the simple version: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. AND BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HARM TO OTHERS BY DOING IT. If I want to play an all sedna game, you will have no say in that. If I want to play an all random game, you will have no say in that either. Sure you can cry all about it, call me names, berate my skills, turn red, grow horns and shoot lightning out of your a$$.. that will not change the fact, that in my games i do as i like. The best you can do is not play in them. Same goes for every other player of Demigod. It is not a question of why they do it, as that is given.. the question is: why should they NOT do it. that is the answer you keep evading and that is the answer i will be very suprised to see answered.. guess why i was kinda happy when someone at least tried to answer the real question instead of dancing around it.

I dont care about you as much as you seem to care about me. I have nowhere to clime down from, or climb on to.. neither do i plan on doing so.

Maybe so, yet this thread was not started by them, but by someone who merely said that he thinks the rule is pointless.. i would say it is bordering the category: flame bait. So i agree that there surely are people who would ban them (i made it quite clear im not from those) and  no.. i still believe that this thread is not the place to fight against that proposed ban.. if anything, then drawing attention to the issue works against your own interests, but i doubt you are smart / experienced enough to see that.

So ESL rules are not "the rules" either.. poor them. Apart from a few extremists, noone expects everyone to follow these custom rules. It is something you must have dreamed up yourself. Either that, or you can surely point me to a thread that shows heavy support for this.

If it was the same kind of arguing you do here, then we can be prepared that randoms will soon become the new standard of gameplay. The best you could do to not help a cause is.. quite frankly.. stay silent about it.

No im sure its not true. After all.. you said so. Feel free to ignore the explanations and rationalizations where i explained why i think this way... its probably way over your head anyway.

Again.. you must be right, after all.. you find that ridiculous. I would argue, but since there is no argument in the quote above, there is just nothing to argue with.


Quite frankly, i will sooner teach a lobotomized monkey how to build a space shuttle, than get a single point through your wall of ignorance. Plus that line was not even directed at you, so i hope you didnt for a moment think that you managed to make a sensible argument.. you didnt.. you would have to start using arugments for that first, which you just refuse to do.

Quite honestly I was going to reply to your post, but after reading it I see you really aren't capable of rational arguement and/or thought. You can't even make one single actual factual statement, even about your own words. Heres an example:

Yes, a question that imposed a fact. I guess you're too uneducated to realize what a leading question is. Not to mention it didn't even have a freaking question mark.

You can continue making up facts all you want in this thread, doesn't make you correct. Sad really I made better arguements in middleschool papers.

 

Its amusing that the most incoherent anti-double guy in the thread is accusing someone else of being ignorant.  

 

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

csebal, I would read this article closely if I were you. 

 

And for petes sake, can people finally get over the freaking "house rules" thing?

This is not an argument about what goes on in some scrubs custom game. Its about what the standardized rules for team automatch should be. 

 

@wickedbear

i very much agree with you that you can find a counter to any combo/double, therefore no double per default is overpowered. but some influence the gameplay in away not enjoyed by a good chunk of people. this is ofcourse map specific. think noone cares about 2 regs in a team on mandala, while it might be seen as a nuissance on cataract or prison.

there is a huge difference between the pro player wanting to play a match of demigod (considering any demigod) and the casual who wants to play a match as tb or whatever. so they want to find an even matchup for there choice not chose to matchup even.

if someone in your game asks for no doubles, just kindly tell him that its your game and you allow doubles. problem solved. he can then leave or adjust to it. if he starts bitching there is a kick option.

no doubles is an optional rule which is used in some casual games. i doubt its much of an issue in pro games nor is it enforced in any pantheon/skirmish games. therefore i dont understand this whole fuzz you all make about it. its a personal preference for custom games only.

1. this is simply not true. having doubles does not force you to such restricted dg selction to counter it. this may be thought by some but it is not true!

2. where do we stop this? every action, itemselection, skilling forces you often to change your common way to play. that's called a game! that is the essence of playing a game, acting and reacting on the opponents decisions.

 

selectnig high towers or similar things  is so far a different story as this does not force other players to change their dg-selction. imposing the rule of no doubles does this. it forces the second of the same dg to play as something different as he wished. and this without any sense!

 

here are only claims that doubles may affect the gameplay in a way that imposes dramatically restrictions to some players. it is funny though that it seems that only people claiming this and defending the no doubles rule are doing this only because they does not know it better. and this is simply stupid! restricting others dg selection only because of the lack of ability to play is unfair and contraproduktiv to themselfs. well, of course this is aalso a claim. but aslong as there was never a realistic reason for the no-doubles rule its they only thing i can imaging off being the reason.

The only doubles I won't usually allow in my games are double Erebus or Oak if the other is already in the game (i.e., three or more minion generals). Not because the combination is necessarily OP (it's generally inferior when both go full minions) but because 48+ of their minions plus however many of our minions slows the game down too much, not to mention the cluster fuck it usually devolves into.

Also, you either balance the game for the highest level or cater to the casual player. There is almost never an in between.

WickedBear, post id 2302153

WickedBear, post id 2302204

You are replying to the same line in the same post twice (not even the first reply made sense), but it is you accusing me of making things up. You are a funny one.

that's a funny one... reason