![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| What makes a game "meaningful"? | |
| Posted By: Hoovaloov | Date: 1/30/12 7:20 a.m. |
In Response To: What's actually causing the snowballing? (uberfoop) : Yeah, I dunno. It seems like, if anything, a higher skill gap might be : preferable. Yes, the tables tilt more easily, but they also probably : wouldn't be as locked in post-tilting. That is, you might be more capable : of accomplishing something meaningful. Why is playing high-card draw not very rewarding or meaningful? It's based on chance. I would argue that the more a player's skill gets rewarded, the more meaningful a game is. The TU rewards player skill by removing some of the "skill gap equalizing factor" of the bloom. That's why spamming is so looked down upon, it's seen as a sort of video game socialism. Players are given kills by the whimsy of the random number generator, even if they didn't "deserve" to win that 1v1 due to their lower skill level. So I don't think it's wise to use randomness to force a game between two unevenly skilled players to become more competitive. I think Matchmaking should do a better job matching equally skilled players and teams to ensure competitiveness. And then let the weapons they use in that game reflect their individual skill as accurately as possible. Now that the TU is in the wild, Reach's poorer attempts at matching even teams are becoming more apparent. No longer can it get away with using bloom to smooth over a fairly large skill gap. When it fails to match even teams, it gets one sided very quickly. So I believe the answer is not to dampen the effects of player skill with built in weapon randomness, but to more equally match players by their skill. This will ensure more meaningful games, no matter what skill level.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |