Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Stealth is valid strategy!

20 (83.3%)

Fuck that shit!  Ruined the metagame!

4 (16.7%)

Don't care either way

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 24

[Makaris]

Patito also reminded us of something HUGELY important: that crits are not in fact random. They are something of a reward for doing what you should be doing in game and are based on a performance-based variable you have some real control over.

Isn't the Buff Banner pretty much an extension of this that is DIRECTLY linked to performance, rather than nebulously like random crits?

[yyler]

I definitely play TF2. I've played against you, once or twice, on ShMo. (I host all the maps for ShMo, too.) I haven't played in a few days, sure, but it is one of the few games I have spent a long time playing a learned a lot about.

Also, the BBanner is directly linked, yes, but it also gives a less powerful crit to more people. It's a different idea than random crits in idea and execution.

[McDohl]

Yeah, I know what Niku is talking about.  No-crit servers seem to have this thing where the knife doesn't get raised for a backstab as per normal.  So you swing the knife as per usual, and it still counts as a backstab.  But it seems to affect my rhythm when trying to knife multiple targets.

[Mongrel]

Patito also reminded us of something HUGELY important: that crits are not in fact random. They are something of a reward for doing what you should be doing in game and are based on a performance-based variable you have some real control over.

Isn't the Buff Banner pretty much an extension of this that is DIRECTLY linked to performance, rather than nebulously like random crits?

Well, this is only for one class and also requires you to give up a weapon slot for that reliability.

I don't think crits and mini-crits are wholly comparable, because even though they're called "mini-crits", all mini-crits are really just a straight-up temporary damage boost (a moderate one at that), based on fixed, known conditions. You can influence regular crits (just enough that you can't consider them truly random), but you can't reliably control or predict them.

At any rate, I think there's room for both in the game.

[Makaris]

The idea behind random (scaling with performance) crits is to do something that a TON of things do now, while being able to be used tactically.  That is, breaking stalemates.  Back in the day the only way to do that was either a lucky critrocket/pipe/sticky, or an uber.  Now the methods to do it number in the dozens, across most of the classes in the game.  Though they might have been healthy game design at one point, random crits don't serve any particular function now.  They're outmoded. 

The point I'm making, as Kayin said, 'Do we really need these things anymore?'  Obviously a lot of people like em', and they've made good arguments why.  I remain unconvinced, but it was an opinion thing to begin with.  I'm not yelling "GO PLAY MARIO PARTY YOU RANDOM-LOVING FAGGOTS", I'm having a respectful discussion with them, even if I'm clearly the Devils Advocate. 

[Kayin]

I actually agree with Makaris on this point. I think crits were a fairly critical element in the early days, but less so anymore. Granted I don't think they're detrimental either. At this point it is more of a matter of flavor and I support that flavor on Shmoses. Crits help create ridiculous moments, give bad players (we have a lot of them) a chance to do things sometimes or survive run in's with deadly monsters and just make things, dare I say, a little funner. I think this is harmless as the type of fun it gets in the way of (extremely competitive fun) isn't really even possible to achieve on Shmoses. If I was to start playing 6v6 pugs though I'd definitely want crits off.

I think if you asked someone at Valve now, they might admit they're not as important. But then they'd probably go "BUT CRITS ARE - MANLY -" and in some ways I tend to agree.

[Mongrel]

Well, it's going to come down to opinion on whether or not quasi-randomness has a place in the game - or any game for that matter.

I will say one thing. As much as it's a terrible crit-noob thing to say, I have played hundreds of games in hundreds of different formats (be it CCGs, RTS, FPS, fighting games, boardgames, RPGs digital and not, or whatever the hell) and not once have I ever, ever seen anything good come of fundamental game balance being taken over by a given game's self-decribed 'pros' (not putting ANYBODY on these boards in that category, BTW).

I have learned to hold a very deep and abiding mistrust for any balance suggestions coming from People Who Think They Know Better.


EDIT: LAWL POLL.

[Makaris]

Hmmm...  well, a lot of the game designers / balancers are pulled directly out of the pool of pro players.  Street Fighter and StarCraft come to mind.  Pro's tend to implement changes very conservatively, which is a position I certainly support.  Though it isn't objectively better.

Edit:  Magic the Gathering too, I think?

[Mongrel]

Well, there's a crucial difference between the original design team maintaining ultimate control over balance, but asking for the input of pro-players, vs. ceding balance to pro players, or having balance imposed by pro-players in a custom environment (i.e. a 6v6 no-crits Pro server is the TF2 equivalent there).

Generally a game designer should be trying to find the best players they can to playtest and break a game. But they should never ever cede their designer's veto.

[Makaris]

Okay, I see what you're saying.  I'm not really qualified to comment one way or the other cause I don't really know what happened during the initial development with the games I mentioned.  The Designers job should be to create something Fun for whatever group they're developing for, with what Fun means being open for debate.

Edit:  And the thread has become the SC2 thread.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, that's like the Godwin of games threads now I guess.

If you guys ever meet Koipond, ask him to tell you the story of how Zvi Moshowitz killed the Netrunner CCG. It's pretty hilarious, but I can't tell it like him at all.

[Kayin]

One thing I have noticed about the TF2 comp community is they don't seem to be douchebags about things. It's more the middle range players that throw shit fits. I think in cases like this, it's an issue of format. Any time a game is used competitively, people are going to try and find an optimal format. This is different from communities that try and 'fix' the game themselves, as opposed to flipping a few CVARs that just make things a tad more consistent.

(Also it took a LONG time for the comp community to decide to get rid of crits. They seemed to like them too, but the end result was more super dominant players doing insane damage all the time D:)

Though to go with what you're saying, here is something I've noticed. Communities can not balance games. Individuals can. The combined "Community Opinions" of balance generally would lead to a boring game. All the successful changes have always come from small groups of people (Quake 3 CPM, or, though unproven, Balanced Brawl as opposed to the community driven Brawl+).

But still this is more of a 'format' thing.

[jsnlxndrlv]

I know that people who see TF2 in a particularly competitive light hate the idea that some aspect of the outcome is being determined by factors that aren't controlled by the players—but in fact, crits are controlled by the players. They only happen when someone is shooting, and they happen more often when people engage in probability-raising behaviors. It's true that you can't count on them from one encounter to the next, but considering the number of attacks that occur over the lifespan of a single TF2 match, they exert a predictable influence. It is possible to mitigate their influence on your game: don't rush up on a guy who just killed three people. Don't necessarily go toe-to-toe with a guy just because the math is in your favor. Always strive to put yourself in a situation where the other guy's gun isn't pointed at you. This is not some mysterious force arbitrarily raising up some players and casting down others—this is a game mechanic that you can account for, and the fact that it makes certain kinds of shootouts far more unpredictable than others is a big reason why the game is so fun.

Warning: 8 new replies while you were typing lol

I was going to make the comparison to Magic but nobody had mentioned it yet. Since Makaris did, then: in Magic, your deck order is random. There are cards that let you influence that order, but you can't guarantee you'll get those cards, either. The reason Magic succeeds competitively is that, because you're playing more than one game in a match and more than one match in a tournament, the effects of randomization are averaged out. Crits in TF2 are less random than even that, though, because they never prevent you from being able to play; attacks will randomly do more damage, but they'll never randomly do no damage whatsoever.

[Makaris]

Agreed.  Is important to maintain design focus so that the things you want to see implemented actually are.  Group consensus would tend to lead to really dumb things happening.  Try reading any given games forum for evidence.

Competitive TF2 also bans a number of weapons if I remember correctly.  Some of them I understand (like, items that cannot be gained through achievements), but others I don't.  I hate the FAN, but I wouldn't wanna see it banned.

Edit:  Even the Direct Hit is banned, if I remember!

Edit @ Newbie:  I don't think anyone's really saying that Crits are TOTALLY random, just that they're random enough to not preform a useful function that isn't already taken care of by a more stable, elegantly designed item.  It's really a flavor thing at this point, though.

[Mongrel]

There's an almost rock-solid consistent theme among players of any game with a random or quasi-random element. As they become more and more skilled in a game's ways, there's a group of players who tend want to control more and more aspects of a game so that "skill" determines all outcomes. These players are sometimes a small group, but they often tend to be more vocal, so the issue becomes magnified.

The thing to understand is that the pinnacle of game design for folks like this is Chess. These people want a chess match.

I don't think that thinking is appropriate for some games. TF2 - in all it's goofy, colourful glory - is one of those games.

[Makaris]

At the end of the day, Mongrel is probably right.  Like I said before, trying to get a truly competitive game out of TF2 is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I'll just throw something out there quick while we're still on the randomness topic, though.  Pokemon has a considerable amount of randomness that has a very strong effect on the outcome of lots of matches.  And it is played by a competitive community that is actually pretty damn chill about it.  I'm pretty sure the only major rule they implemented is how Sleep interacts when it is used multiple times, as it can totally ruin matches.  And Wobuffet, who also totally ruins matches.  Off the top of my head, Pokemon is the best example I can think of of a community that doesn't rage about randomness.  Randomness was built into the core designs of the game, and it works. 

The issue comes from games that seem to have had their core designed fleshed out, and then some kind of randomness is layered on top of it.  That doesn't tend to work so well.

Edit @ Newbie:  DURR, I forgot Magic.  Magic (and pretty much all CCG's) have a critical element of randomness that is incorporated into the core design from the very start.  That is very dissimilar to how TF2 handles random crits.

Edit 2:  What I mean to say is that TF2 without randomness is a perfectly playable game.  Magic without randomness CANNOT EXIST.

[Kayin]

Direct Hit was banned for awhile because the session was finishing. Only whiners ban the FAN. Buff Banner seems to be a big deal though and everyone bans the sandman. Just saying.

Anyways, I think comparing randomness to MTG and stuff is kinda silly. Sure, you can influence them, but they do have a rather uncontrollable influence on matchups -- and where crit rockets are concerned, an EXTREME swingability. I think removing randomness in competitive environments where the randomness doesn't serve much of a purpose in the format is a totally valid thing. A lot of people just say "well dealing with randomness is part of the game", but it all depends on the benefit. Playing with the consideration that every rocket may be a crit rocket is really obnoxious. In pubs this is okay because theres little reason to be SUPER INVESTED IN SURVIVAL. In old comp games, the choice was 'play like scared idiots or lose, or just play and hope the god of random is fair and kind". When you're playing seriously or in a ladder game, thats not something that particularly adds to the game.

Non-Random MTG is a broken, unplayable game on the otherhand. The randomness is at the core of the game, and the entire game is based on valuation and optimal deck consistency. It's Apples and Oranges. Not saying any particular points about crits are right or wrong, but we shouldn't be looking at games that are fundamentally dependent on randomness as examples of dealing with random elements. Removing Crits and Spread does not turn TF2 into an unplayable mess of game. This is more a cost/benefit analysis.

[Makaris]

Isn't the Direct Hit still banned, though?  I thought it was because air-shotting became way too dominate?  Or did I just read LIES AND DECEIT somewhere?

[Kayin]

When the weapon was announced, some people were like AAA OH GOD, but really the DH is kinda underpowered, ESPECIALLY for comps, since spam is so useful. Some ladders might still be going with the initial hype, but I'm not sure. I know some major ladders have allowed it, yet I still haven't seen it. Which says a lot.

[Makaris]

I was probably reading something old, then.  Good to know!