Post by BulgarianMenace on Dec 12, 2009 8:12:59 GMT -5
Since the advent of more 360 players here on proboards, a whole new set of ideas and approaches to the game have come to light (presumably for both sides).
One of the differences between the communities is the way they conduct 1v1s.
The 360 format requires a respawn after each death so that both players start with a fresh life each encounter, and a dance to signify the start of every encounter (at least, for warrior 1v1s, and I'm assuming is the case for 1v1s in general).
The ps3 format has no such additional rules. Players simply spawn and approach each other generally anywhere on the map, with attacking permissible from the moment they spawn. There are no respawns in between encounters.
Now that the communities are becoming more integrated, I propose we agree upon a single format that we can all follow. Of course, this means that "tradition" will have to change for one of the communities, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In the rest of this post I will make the case for the 360 community adopting the ps3 format.
I will first address the issue of respawns following each encounter (note: this is not applicable to mage vs mage since the mage's heal essentially has the same effect as respawning in between encounters for the other classes).
I will begin with what I think is my most compelling point against respawns:
- I posit that no respawns yields a result that more accurately represents the difference in skill level between the two opponents.
Allow me to explain. Suppose you have three players, "A," "B," and "C." A has a 1v1 with B, and also with C. They are playing with respawns. In the first 1v1 A loses 10-0, and on average B had 75% of his health left after each encounter. In the second 1v1 A again loses 10-0, but this time on average C had only 25% of his health left. Now, from that description it seems clear that B is better than C, and yet the results would indicate that they are equal.
If there were no respawns one would assume that the two scores would be different. Rough calculations (off the top of my head, lol) using those life %s suggest that A vs B would be 10-2 or 10-3, and the A vs C would be 10-7 or 10-8. A marked difference, to be sure.
Which brings me to my second, ableit related, point
- No respawns rewards the player for playing better, and punishes poor execution more than respawns do. Respawns reward poor play and good play equally.
With respawns a player might be sloppy and only have 25% of their life left after each encounter, like our earlier example. But that poor play is erased by each respawn. There are no consequences.
Without respawns if a player plays well they are rewarded by having a good % of their health left going into the next encounter, instead of being given it back for free which respawning would do. The reward is much less if they play more poorly and end up with low health after each encounter, while respawns would have them at full health again.
In addition, respawns allow players to get away with taking greater risks; if they should fail and get punished, if they don't die they can still kill the other person first, and then get all their health back. WIthout respawns players can take the same risks if they want, but there more lasting repercussions should they fail, while carrying the same high level of reward should they succeed.
- Respawns automatically create a slope which favors whoever is ahead, while such an advantage has to be earned without respawns.
Without respawns the player who lost the most recent encounter has a better chance of getting back into the match because the other player will have (presumably) less health going into the next encounter. However, the better player should still build up more damage to total health and earn a lead over time. How great a lead depends on how much better they play than the other person.
With respawns it is much harder to make up a deficit because health resets. Which connects back to my first 2 points; difference in skill is less obvious with results from respawn matches because the health resets for free and the advantage is not earned.
That concludes my argument against respawns. Next I will address dancing to signify the start of each engagement.
I'm still a little unclear about how this works.
At what distance do the fighters have to be to start?
If it is too close, I think that is bad because it hedges a very important aspect of any game - the approach.
If it is far enough to make that a non-issue then why dance at all? I mean, it just seems unnecessary (except as a silent signal between people in full servers that they wish to engage one another in a 1v1 mid match).
I suppose it is ok provided there is enough distance to start. But what exactly is enough distance? I think, due to the ambiguity of the concept it would be difficult to come up with a standard, reproducible definition, and therefore dancing should be dropped altogether in order to avoid that problem.
Now, the point can be made that the same problem of curtailed approaches could arise if there were no dancing since the winner of the previous engagement could spawn camp in advance of the next engagement. To that I would argue that the problem solves itself: even if a player wanted to spawn camp, they would have to maintain a certain distance to allow for the spawn invincibility to wear off before engaging. I submit that this distance is the appropriate distance that must be maintained and will determine itself. Should the camping player be too close they will either suffer the consequences by taking damage and possibly dying, OR the spawning player can take advantage of their invincibility to create the distance they desire if they don't want to attack right away. This in turn adds another layer of depth (how you choose to position yourself in anticipation of your opponent's next spawn on the one hand, and what you do with your spawn invincibility on the other).
Not to mention that spawn camping on most tdm stages is a crapshoot since there are several spawn locations for both sides. And again, the spawn locations are another strategic aspect to consider in deciding where you want to be while waiting for your opponent to respawn,
Conclusions (or tl;dr, lol):
The standard 1v1 format should dictate no respawns in between engagements. Such a format would better represent the relative skill level of players, and provide a better system of risk and reward.
Dancing should be omitted from the standard format because of the potential for infrigniging on a key strategic element (approaching), and because not dancing is the simplest way to solve that dilemma. No dancing also adds more strategic elements to consider.
What say you, conquest community?
One of the differences between the communities is the way they conduct 1v1s.
The 360 format requires a respawn after each death so that both players start with a fresh life each encounter, and a dance to signify the start of every encounter (at least, for warrior 1v1s, and I'm assuming is the case for 1v1s in general).
The ps3 format has no such additional rules. Players simply spawn and approach each other generally anywhere on the map, with attacking permissible from the moment they spawn. There are no respawns in between encounters.
Now that the communities are becoming more integrated, I propose we agree upon a single format that we can all follow. Of course, this means that "tradition" will have to change for one of the communities, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In the rest of this post I will make the case for the 360 community adopting the ps3 format.
I will first address the issue of respawns following each encounter (note: this is not applicable to mage vs mage since the mage's heal essentially has the same effect as respawning in between encounters for the other classes).
I will begin with what I think is my most compelling point against respawns:
- I posit that no respawns yields a result that more accurately represents the difference in skill level between the two opponents.
Allow me to explain. Suppose you have three players, "A," "B," and "C." A has a 1v1 with B, and also with C. They are playing with respawns. In the first 1v1 A loses 10-0, and on average B had 75% of his health left after each encounter. In the second 1v1 A again loses 10-0, but this time on average C had only 25% of his health left. Now, from that description it seems clear that B is better than C, and yet the results would indicate that they are equal.
If there were no respawns one would assume that the two scores would be different. Rough calculations (off the top of my head, lol) using those life %s suggest that A vs B would be 10-2 or 10-3, and the A vs C would be 10-7 or 10-8. A marked difference, to be sure.
Which brings me to my second, ableit related, point
- No respawns rewards the player for playing better, and punishes poor execution more than respawns do. Respawns reward poor play and good play equally.
With respawns a player might be sloppy and only have 25% of their life left after each encounter, like our earlier example. But that poor play is erased by each respawn. There are no consequences.
Without respawns if a player plays well they are rewarded by having a good % of their health left going into the next encounter, instead of being given it back for free which respawning would do. The reward is much less if they play more poorly and end up with low health after each encounter, while respawns would have them at full health again.
In addition, respawns allow players to get away with taking greater risks; if they should fail and get punished, if they don't die they can still kill the other person first, and then get all their health back. WIthout respawns players can take the same risks if they want, but there more lasting repercussions should they fail, while carrying the same high level of reward should they succeed.
- Respawns automatically create a slope which favors whoever is ahead, while such an advantage has to be earned without respawns.
Without respawns the player who lost the most recent encounter has a better chance of getting back into the match because the other player will have (presumably) less health going into the next encounter. However, the better player should still build up more damage to total health and earn a lead over time. How great a lead depends on how much better they play than the other person.
With respawns it is much harder to make up a deficit because health resets. Which connects back to my first 2 points; difference in skill is less obvious with results from respawn matches because the health resets for free and the advantage is not earned.
That concludes my argument against respawns. Next I will address dancing to signify the start of each engagement.
I'm still a little unclear about how this works.
At what distance do the fighters have to be to start?
If it is too close, I think that is bad because it hedges a very important aspect of any game - the approach.
If it is far enough to make that a non-issue then why dance at all? I mean, it just seems unnecessary (except as a silent signal between people in full servers that they wish to engage one another in a 1v1 mid match).
I suppose it is ok provided there is enough distance to start. But what exactly is enough distance? I think, due to the ambiguity of the concept it would be difficult to come up with a standard, reproducible definition, and therefore dancing should be dropped altogether in order to avoid that problem.
Now, the point can be made that the same problem of curtailed approaches could arise if there were no dancing since the winner of the previous engagement could spawn camp in advance of the next engagement. To that I would argue that the problem solves itself: even if a player wanted to spawn camp, they would have to maintain a certain distance to allow for the spawn invincibility to wear off before engaging. I submit that this distance is the appropriate distance that must be maintained and will determine itself. Should the camping player be too close they will either suffer the consequences by taking damage and possibly dying, OR the spawning player can take advantage of their invincibility to create the distance they desire if they don't want to attack right away. This in turn adds another layer of depth (how you choose to position yourself in anticipation of your opponent's next spawn on the one hand, and what you do with your spawn invincibility on the other).
Not to mention that spawn camping on most tdm stages is a crapshoot since there are several spawn locations for both sides. And again, the spawn locations are another strategic aspect to consider in deciding where you want to be while waiting for your opponent to respawn,
Conclusions (or tl;dr, lol):
The standard 1v1 format should dictate no respawns in between engagements. Such a format would better represent the relative skill level of players, and provide a better system of risk and reward.
Dancing should be omitted from the standard format because of the potential for infrigniging on a key strategic element (approaching), and because not dancing is the simplest way to solve that dilemma. No dancing also adds more strategic elements to consider.
What say you, conquest community?
