This Audley Enough is a response post, to a video from Scott "Gandhi" Lussier where he pondered the question, "Do Video Games need to be competitive?" Go watch that before reading this.
Now, understand that most of this post is responding to that video, and that I'm also equally prone to rambling. I don't have any cohesive message to tell with this Audley Enough, it's just responding to a handful of points.
You made great points on the social comparison and genetics.
I don't necessarily agree that a game needs a method of social comparison to be successful, but perhaps for longevity it is necessary. I think the important thing here is that players need a goal to work towards, whether it be beating the next level of a difficult single-player game (which has built-in limitations) or beating a high-ranked player in a competitive game (which is limited only by the power of the individual to 'solve' the game). I'll touch more on this later.
The genetics argument MAY be inaccurate; after all, we often hear the stereotype "Asians are better at video games" -- StarCraft 2, League of Legends, and even fighting games seem to somewhat support this trend while there aren't evidence of it in Shooters, so it could come down to an argument of infrastructure. DotA2 still has European teams/players win international events despite having an established infrastructure in China, but Korea has just now begun playing the game professionally. We'll find out in roughly a year how much the "Korean Dominance" will apply here and how much their combination of superior infrastructure and potential genetic attunement to reaction speed may apply. However, it's definitely more accessible and more likely for players to reach a high level of play despite their outward physical appearance, as there is less overtly physical requirement to get good at a game.
Regarding the 15%/85% League statement. I find those numbers a bit misleading or vague since you used the word "revenue" -- how much of their events are funded by sponsors, and how much are funded by their organization? How much of their prize pools are provided by the developers themselves? I don't doubt their numbers are true, but I don't think they're the whole truth or outline clearly what it takes to put on a major tournament.
"eSports Savvy"
Spectator mode is great. Ranks are great. League of Legends had neither of these when it first launched. The elo for players' normal games was hidden, although the Devs at one point were open about providing a player's elo. The unranked games did have some hint of ranks to them. I was the #314-ranked player at the end of League of Legends' beta and now have a Master Beta Summoner Icon. The Spectator Mode however did not exist at all until I believe WCG 2010, where it was implemented in a very wonky fashion of a summoner spell that gave you full vision of the map. Nothing near what it became at the start of Season 2, where the full Spectator Mode was first unveiled.
Regarding Developer Support, this is a large part of what made Riot so successful. Early on (in Beta), the developers from the top of the company down were very active in the community, and even had weekly rundowns on Ventrilo where the top players at the time could give feedback about things directly to a member of the design team, and new players had a separate designer to interact with. Good developer support helps make good games, but there are two pieces of the puzzle missing here that I think you should consider mentioning in future discussions on the topic.
1) Publisher support. You mention Developer support, but I'll point you to a game/series that, I think you'd say had good developer support: Gears of War. CliffyB is a legend in the industry and for good reason. So what made GoW flop? It has a large amount to do with why Halo 4 launched with incomplete features, a lack of beta, and several bugs: their publisher. And it's funny, both of them had the same publisher. Some jackass company called Microsoft Game Studios.
I'd like to mention another game... that was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Diablo 2, long before Diablo 3 was ever announced. Let's hop in our time machine back to the year 2007 and talk about a game I was looking very forward to, known as Hellgate: London. A lot of Blizzard Entertainment employees, namely of Blizzard's acquired branch "Blizzard North" left the company due to Blizzard's publisher/owners at the time, Vivendi Universal being a bunch of...for lack of a better description, useless cunts. So they started their own company with a massive venture capital investment and named themselves Flagship Studios. These were all more or less the exact developers behind Diablo and Diablo 2. David Brevik was the lead designer on this new game...and it seeked to blend FPS gameplay with the Diablo action/RPG gameplay (sort of like Borderlands eventually did.)
However... the publisher for the game... was Electronics Arts. And the game was announced to have a release date before they had even considered an alpha or beta test for the game (and note, that... it's pretty standard fare for MMOs these days, and even back then, to have long, protracted beta phases to get all the kinks worked out. No dice here, they had to get the game out in a hurry. Because EA weren't given them enough money to pay off their venture capital debts. The game launched in an awful, buggy, unpolished, and underdeveloped state. Very few people opted to pay for the premium subscription in the game to unlock new content...Flagship defaulted on their loans, and ultimately the company had to close down and sell off the assets of the game to the company that was publishing the game in Korea. (If you need more evidence EA is a shit publisher, take a look at MAXIS' most recent launch of Sim City.)
Now...that long rant aside... the second piece of the puzzle:
2) Good Quality Assurance Analysts. (And skilled players as Designers) This is where Riot Games truly kicks the ass of every company in competitive gaming.
Riot Games has a position they constantly hire for called Game Analyst. Literally the role of this person is to essentially give balance and clarity feedback about the game and new features before they ever reach public consumption. They're game testers, but rather than seek out bugs or ensure things work properly... they look for ways to break them balance-wise...or look to make sure that, as a player, the purpose of any skill or item is clear and the majority of its use-cases match developer intention.
That sounds like a pretty decent job, but here's the catch: You have to be -at least- Gold League in League of Legends to even apply for this job. That's right, you have to PROVE you are good at the game before they even consider you for the job. And the majority of people they hire for this position, when such applicants are available are Diamond+. Statikk, who is now a member of the design team, joined Riot a few years ago as a Game Analyst. He was the 11th-ranked player at the end of Beta and a top elo player at the time of his hire. Classick held the #1 spot at one time, he's now either a QA Analyst or Designer. Jatt, the commentator, was hired at Riot as a Design-team member before shifting to his position as commentator...he was a professional jungler for Team Dignitas prior to being hired by Riot.
League of Legends has one major thing, design-wise, that sets it apart from pretenders and other games of the genre, as well as many other games in general. From a base design standpoint, it seeks to make sure that everything is 1) Clear and 2) Consistent. Skills that are too complex for a new player to understand require too much of a burden of knowledge to play with or against; they're frustrating for new players and confusing to spectators. League of Legends avoids skills like these. Apart from critical hits and Sion/TF's passive, there are almost no random effects still in LoL. Although the game had several when it was first designed, they've slowly been weeded out...and even the existence of Crit at level 1 has been cut down to requiring a rune investment, when previously it could exist from masteries or even characters' base crit scaling.
This design purpose makes sure all the power is in the player's hand, but that using a skill better than another player is nuanced to the point that a good player learns how to do it from experience, rather than randomly doing it or randomly failing it because the game engine said so (*cough* Bloom *cough*) and using a skill poorly is usually clear because, well, either you missed or you got killed afterward.
I forget where you mentioned Titanfall and Destiny because I forgot to make a note of it while watching your video, but I do want to include a prediction regarding Titanfall. The game will flare up and die quickly. At launch, there will inevitably be problems with the online platform (See: Electronics Arts publishing.) -- but once those frustrations subside, the remaining players will be sorted into two categories: The really fucking good players, who enjoy it because of its unique movement mechanics and clear ability to separate the good players from the bad... And the bad players, who hate it because of its difficult movement mechanics and the fact that they're getting shit on by players who are clearly better than them, as they struggle to improve and give up, moving onto something easier for them to manage. As the latter category dwindles in size, the gameplay will stagnate and slowly bleed players to other, newer games where the casual playerbase is larger, and there's more potential for growth. It will be like Tribes: Ascend all over again. Regarding Destiny... I don't think competitive console FPS players will stick around it for long. I think it will appeal more to the crowd who prefer Borderlands over Halo/CoD, and seek to fulfill that same lootfest thirst (see: story coming up in a few paragraphs).
I don't believe the Forced Grind to 30 before playing ranked is a good thing, nor is the forced grind for Runes. I disagree with the concept of Forced Grind, but I do acknowledge that there is something there that is important, and it ties back into the social comparison and something you briefly mentioned regarding Halo in your discussion about Ranks (when you mentioned the katana on the back of your armor)...and it's another specific position you'll see game companies hiring for, and Bungie constantly attempted to hire for near the end of Halo 3:
Player Investment Design. What is Player Investment? It's how tied a player is to the game. In World of WarCraft, a player gets invested because they want to get their Warrior to the level cap with the top tier equipment and be fully decked out so they can finally go raiding. In League of Legends, it's unlocking more champions and runes with your IP. In Reach, it's getting that Inclement Weather armor effect so you can look like you're doing the electric slide all the time. In CoD, it's unlocking the guns and prestiging.
I'll relate this to a personal story...
I have played several thousands of hours of Diablo 2 in my life. Several. Thousands. And for me, I didn't really enjoy the game when I played it. It was a chore. But there was always one thing about the game that appealed to me...(that I now look back at disdainfully, but fully recognize it was what kept me playing the game)... Because Diablo 2 had unique items and runewords with very specific effects, and there were places on the internet that I could see all the skills and theorycraft some awesome build... I could plan out my end-game character the moment I started playing a new character. I could have every detail of the character down to the rings on their fingers ready before the character even started into the game...but there was one obstacle:
I still had to level that character up and FIND or TRADE for those items. So to do that, I had to grind. I hadta power level to the point that I could just run Mephisto all day with my 600% Magic Find gear on in order to find either the items I was looking for, or similarly valuable items that I could potentially use to acquire what I wanted. Just so I could see if the build I'd made for my character beforehand was as good or fun as it seemed on paper. My Cold Sorc with full Energy Shield with an Insight RW+Prayer Act 2 Merc was almost literally immortal once I got her build. (The exception being wh en she encountered unique mobs with Extra Fast+Mana Burn or if Baal managed to clone himself.) I didn't care that the gameplay was tedious at that point. I just wanted to build the character I had thought up. And for me, that kept me playing for THOUSANDS of hours.
It isn't that a game needs to be competitive. But a player needs to have clear goals. Whether it be beating the next fucking level of Candy Crush (at the expense of all your friends on Facebook, or your significant other's debit card that mysteriously went missing), or in the case of Peter Molyneux's strange game where players clicked away at an enormous cube made of smaller cubes where the lone goal was to reach the center... Players will keep playing until their goal is reached. Ranks make it easier to make it clear what the goal is. Top level external competitions and LAN events make the goal more attractive to the best and most skilled players. But neither of those are truly required for longevity. Diablo 2's PvP was a mess, unless you participated in LLDs (low level duels) where a strict level cap was enforced to ensure the massive late game balance and problem of dying too fast was a problem...but a massive majority of the player base didn't play for that. They played to farm items to complete their build they thought up...to farm more items to complete another build they thought up.
One final note, and this is just a nitpicking bit... You mentioned a need for a report function, then mentioned "You have Community Managers, use them." - just pointing out, it's actually the Player Support team's job to deal with reported players; not Community Managers. Player Support handle problems with the game, such as billing inquiries and such, and are also the team that ultimately issue bans in cases of abuse or extreme circumstances. They are referred to in MMOS as "GMs" or "Game Managers" -- but they are not to be confused with COMMUNITY managers. While the LoL Tribunal system was a joint effort of CMs, Player Support, and Game Designers, the system is overseen by the Support team.
I only nitpick this because a friend of mine has been Community Manager at a few game development companies, and at one, he constantly bitched about how the company essentially only wanted him to be a glorified forum moderator. When, at his previous jobs (Flagship Studios, Garage Games) he drove initiatives to improve player investment, market the game, foster fansite appreciation, and even develop some additional website features. Community Managers are a much broader, high-level job than someone who has time to sit and read xAnauiram420's report on how l33tSn1p3r was obviously cheating, and his teammate fRaNkLyMyDear didn't give a damn and just AFK'ed all game. Again, it's Semantics and nitpicking, but it's still something to note for future reference.
Audley Enough, we agree on a lot of things here... but I wanted to expound upon some of your ideas and bring to light some things you may not have been aware of.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Halo 4 Global Championships: When Marketing Campaigns play Dress-Up as eSports
Disclaimer: I want to make it absolutely clear that 343, the players, and the commentators were absolutely fantastic this weekend. Nothing I'm about to say is directed toward any of those three groups unless I explicitly mention them in the statement.
So...how about those Halo 4 Global Championships? They were pretty fantastic, right?
Audley Enough, it left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I saw some tweets about how it was a great tournament. And here's where I'm going to stop you, and correct you.
That was an awful tournament. It was a good show. It was a good (expensive) marketing campaign. But again, from a competitive integrity standpoint, that tournament was terrible.
First, the format. A...100+ team FFA feed into a 4-player 1v1 BEST OF ONE finals? The fuck is that? Best of one? Really? Now, time constraints are one thing, but getting yourself so constrained that you have to limit yourself to best of ones for GRAND FINALS for (one of) the LARGEST PRIZE POOLS Halo has ever seen? That's pretty fucked up. Seriously.
FPS titles have traditionally been a showcase of multiple maps and sometimes multiple game variants. Hell, even Quake Live, which still gets played at Dreamhack events has Best of 3 finals showing off three different maps. And if you're unfamiliar, its format is always 1v1.
By my next statement I mean no offense to the winner, Aaron Elam...but when a player openly admits to only having practiced for an event for about a week prior and ends up winning Two HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars at said event over players who have put in substantially more time and effort...you know the format of the tournament is a little fucked. Again, don't take this statement wrong. Ace played fantastically and he earned his win...but as someone who preaches practice, I can't help but feel if there was a little bit more consistency required of the tournament, he may not have seen as great of success. I still extend my congratulations to him. Hey, he was the first Halo pro to have ever had me on his friend's list. I can't hate.
Secondly, the trailers.
Okay, what the fuck. This is a Halo tournament, right? It's the HALO FOUR GLOBAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, right?
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SHOWING ME A FUCKING TRAILER FOR BATTLEFIELD 4 AND FUCKING PLANTS VERSUS ZOMBIES GARDEN WARFARE? I don't go to LoL events and expect to see a trailer for DotA2. You know why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING SHOW YOU LEAGUE OF LEGENDS at LEAGUE OF LEGENDS EVENTS.
For this to have been as marketing-focused as it was, I'm confused as fuck as to what Microsoft was actually trying to market. I mean, they gave us some of the most limited scope of what Halo has to offer as humanly possible -- FFA and 1v1s of a team game... And then they go off and show us three trailers for three different shooters all coming to the XBox One console. This event's about Halo, right? So why are you trying to draw us to different shooters, Micro$oft?
Thirdly, the production.
Wait, the production? Those production values were insane, Audley! What are you smoking?
I'm not going to disagree that the production values were insane. But the part that bugged me about it was how painfully scripted it was. If you couldn't tell the two hosts were reading from a teleprompter, you weren't watching. Granted, they would go off-script on occasion...but in those instances, it was the only time the two would actually engage each other or their surroundings during the show. Otherwise, they just kept looking forward. You could even feel when they felt the teleprompted jokes ("Spartan badassery") were too forced, and grit their teeth to grind through it.
I know Riot and the LCS use teleprompters, and often the casters read from it when setting up transitions. However, most have enough genuine character of their own merit that it doesn't feel as awkward.
I do want to make it clear -- I enjoyed my time in Benaroya Hall during the finals. It was a good show. It was executed very well, and the games were intense and fun to watch. But when I see people praising the event and lauding it as proof that "Halo is back!" and "343 gets it" I just shudder.
I repeat what I've said all along: Halo 4's launch state being poor isn't 343's fault. That launch state is a publisher issue, not a developer one. Publisher determines release date, and when something's released with no beta, tons of bugs, and missing content, you don't say "Oh, well clearly that's what the developer wanted. What idiots." That's a "Big Daddy Moneybags decided we had to release by this date or we wouldn't get paid." Oh, and by the way... Microsoft Game Studios published Halo 4.
Also, how soon do you think an event that size will get done again? Microsoft and Virgin gaming just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a tournam-err, excuse me, MARKETING CAMPAIGN, that had a couple months worth of qualifiers, weeks worth of headaches for the staff that had to moderate the online qualifiers (I honestly feel for Bravo and bsangel after seeing some of the tweets they got every time a loss or a leave happened during the Online quals.). If they manage to do another one of these before PAX Prime of NEXT year, I'll be speechless.
Microsoft still hasn't shown that they understand eSports...neither from a format standpoint, nor from the standpoint of building storylines. Hell, there wasn't TIME to build storylines with this mega-condensed faux-tourney they held this past weekend. I don't even recall Bravo or Goldenboy mentioning that Ace's older brother happened to be at the Halo 4 GC as well (and, if you saw, ran onto stage to hug him when he won).
So for me, this was not an entirely reassuring experience. It still shows a deep ignorance of competitive gaming from the corporate dogs at Microsoft and there's still miles of room for improvement in nearly every avenue. I hope Microsoft takes a more serious approach to one of its most historically successful franchises and attempts to turn this into a more focused attempt to bring the series back to what it used to be, rather than an attempt to dump money onto a game whose fans are turning away from it in a half-assed attempt to bring them back to the game. I sincerely hope the latter is not the case.
Anyway, in closing... I want to thank 343, all of the players (even Gamesager), Goldenboy, Gh057Ayame, Microsoft, Virgin Gaming, and PAX Prime for enabling the Halo 4 Global Championships to happen. It is a step...maybe not in the right direction, but at least in a less-wrong direction...toward bringing Halo back to the limelight. And without all of their help combined, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to rant about it.
It was a great experience, and the finals were extremely tense. Regardless of my gripes, I'm still elated that I went. And I hope to see more in the future. I leave you with photographic proof that "Halo is dad" though. Gandhi and Maven casting Call of Duty:
So...how about those Halo 4 Global Championships? They were pretty fantastic, right?
Audley Enough, it left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I saw some tweets about how it was a great tournament. And here's where I'm going to stop you, and correct you.
That was an awful tournament. It was a good show. It was a good (expensive) marketing campaign. But again, from a competitive integrity standpoint, that tournament was terrible.
First, the format. A...100+ team FFA feed into a 4-player 1v1 BEST OF ONE finals? The fuck is that? Best of one? Really? Now, time constraints are one thing, but getting yourself so constrained that you have to limit yourself to best of ones for GRAND FINALS for (one of) the LARGEST PRIZE POOLS Halo has ever seen? That's pretty fucked up. Seriously.
FPS titles have traditionally been a showcase of multiple maps and sometimes multiple game variants. Hell, even Quake Live, which still gets played at Dreamhack events has Best of 3 finals showing off three different maps. And if you're unfamiliar, its format is always 1v1.
By my next statement I mean no offense to the winner, Aaron Elam...but when a player openly admits to only having practiced for an event for about a week prior and ends up winning Two HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars at said event over players who have put in substantially more time and effort...you know the format of the tournament is a little fucked. Again, don't take this statement wrong. Ace played fantastically and he earned his win...but as someone who preaches practice, I can't help but feel if there was a little bit more consistency required of the tournament, he may not have seen as great of success. I still extend my congratulations to him. Hey, he was the first Halo pro to have ever had me on his friend's list. I can't hate.
Secondly, the trailers.
Okay, what the fuck. This is a Halo tournament, right? It's the HALO FOUR GLOBAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, right?
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SHOWING ME A FUCKING TRAILER FOR BATTLEFIELD 4 AND FUCKING PLANTS VERSUS ZOMBIES GARDEN WARFARE? I don't go to LoL events and expect to see a trailer for DotA2. You know why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING SHOW YOU LEAGUE OF LEGENDS at LEAGUE OF LEGENDS EVENTS.
For this to have been as marketing-focused as it was, I'm confused as fuck as to what Microsoft was actually trying to market. I mean, they gave us some of the most limited scope of what Halo has to offer as humanly possible -- FFA and 1v1s of a team game... And then they go off and show us three trailers for three different shooters all coming to the XBox One console. This event's about Halo, right? So why are you trying to draw us to different shooters, Micro$oft?
Thirdly, the production.
Wait, the production? Those production values were insane, Audley! What are you smoking?
I'm not going to disagree that the production values were insane. But the part that bugged me about it was how painfully scripted it was. If you couldn't tell the two hosts were reading from a teleprompter, you weren't watching. Granted, they would go off-script on occasion...but in those instances, it was the only time the two would actually engage each other or their surroundings during the show. Otherwise, they just kept looking forward. You could even feel when they felt the teleprompted jokes ("Spartan badassery") were too forced, and grit their teeth to grind through it.
I know Riot and the LCS use teleprompters, and often the casters read from it when setting up transitions. However, most have enough genuine character of their own merit that it doesn't feel as awkward.
I do want to make it clear -- I enjoyed my time in Benaroya Hall during the finals. It was a good show. It was executed very well, and the games were intense and fun to watch. But when I see people praising the event and lauding it as proof that "Halo is back!" and "343 gets it" I just shudder.
I repeat what I've said all along: Halo 4's launch state being poor isn't 343's fault. That launch state is a publisher issue, not a developer one. Publisher determines release date, and when something's released with no beta, tons of bugs, and missing content, you don't say "Oh, well clearly that's what the developer wanted. What idiots." That's a "Big Daddy Moneybags decided we had to release by this date or we wouldn't get paid." Oh, and by the way... Microsoft Game Studios published Halo 4.
Also, how soon do you think an event that size will get done again? Microsoft and Virgin gaming just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a tournam-err, excuse me, MARKETING CAMPAIGN, that had a couple months worth of qualifiers, weeks worth of headaches for the staff that had to moderate the online qualifiers (I honestly feel for Bravo and bsangel after seeing some of the tweets they got every time a loss or a leave happened during the Online quals.). If they manage to do another one of these before PAX Prime of NEXT year, I'll be speechless.
Microsoft still hasn't shown that they understand eSports...neither from a format standpoint, nor from the standpoint of building storylines. Hell, there wasn't TIME to build storylines with this mega-condensed faux-tourney they held this past weekend. I don't even recall Bravo or Goldenboy mentioning that Ace's older brother happened to be at the Halo 4 GC as well (and, if you saw, ran onto stage to hug him when he won).
So for me, this was not an entirely reassuring experience. It still shows a deep ignorance of competitive gaming from the corporate dogs at Microsoft and there's still miles of room for improvement in nearly every avenue. I hope Microsoft takes a more serious approach to one of its most historically successful franchises and attempts to turn this into a more focused attempt to bring the series back to what it used to be, rather than an attempt to dump money onto a game whose fans are turning away from it in a half-assed attempt to bring them back to the game. I sincerely hope the latter is not the case.
Anyway, in closing... I want to thank 343, all of the players (even Gamesager), Goldenboy, Gh057Ayame, Microsoft, Virgin Gaming, and PAX Prime for enabling the Halo 4 Global Championships to happen. It is a step...maybe not in the right direction, but at least in a less-wrong direction...toward bringing Halo back to the limelight. And without all of their help combined, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to rant about it.
It was a great experience, and the finals were extremely tense. Regardless of my gripes, I'm still elated that I went. And I hope to see more in the future. I leave you with photographic proof that "Halo is dad" though. Gandhi and Maven casting Call of Duty:
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Fighting Chance: Randomness in Competitive Gaming (and Sports)
If you're reading this, you probably play video games. In fact, you probably enjoy competing, or attempting to compete in video games. And if you're like me, you really hate arbitrary systems that limit your ability to outplay your opponents. Often, people will talk about how "random shit" screwed them out of a win, or a kill, or whatever.
So...what is randomness?
The dictionary has a few different definitions both formal (from statistics) and informal regarding the word "random" - but for the sake of this blog, I will be using a bit of a fusion of the definitions. In the context of competition, the word random means...
"Unable to be accurately predicted or controlled based off the knowledge any participating player has available to them at a given time."
To clarify, this means any action within the rules of a game taken by a player cannot, by definition, be random. Being unable to predict an opposing player's actions is not an act of randomness, but rather an act of them out-playing you. Sirlin covers the concept of reading and predicting an opponent's actions quite well in his article about "Yomi Layer 3."
In competitive gaming, many of the anti-randomness camp tend to cling to the argument, "There is no randomness in real sports." But, let's take a closer look at that.
Say you're playing baseball. A ground ball is hit toward third base. On its way there, it hits a rock in the ground and bounces toward second base instead.
It is highly unlikely and completely unrealistic to expect that any player participating in the game has an intimate enough level of knowledge of the field's terrain to know that there was a rock there likely to cause such an awkward bounce. This is an act of randomness.
Say you're playing basketball. You go to participate in the tip off. The referee (not a player participating in the game) throws the ball up, but the referee's hand is not level, sending the ball closer to you than your opponent. Neither you nor your opponent had any idea or say in this occuring. This is an act of randomness.
Football, wind during field goals. A sudden gust or cessation of gusting can completely change the outcome of a kick. Unless the wind is completely consistent, the wind's effects are random. Nature is random.
Granted, many of these random factors are limited and often will only occur in edge cases. Most random factors are able to be reacted to in a way that does not overall affect the outcome of a game. And in most cases, the random factor is not enough to outweigh the differentiation in skill.
Of course, I emphasize my use of the phrase "in most cases" and point back in recent history to the "Inaccurate Reception" -- a play in the 2012 Packers/Seahawks game in which Seahawks QB Russell Wilson threw an interception to Packers' defender M.D. Jennings, which was ruled by the officiating staff as a completion to Seahawks receiver Golden Tate. Even after video review that showed overwhelming evidence this was an incorrect call, the call stood, giving the Seahawks a win in an otherwise lost game. This outcome, completely unpredictable and uncontrollable by the players (and wRONG by the actual rules of the game) was a random factor (by the above definition) that determined the outcome of the game.
This randomness extends into various video games, even those of a competitive nature. Often, random factors are met with a certain level of disdain from the players. Critical hits and status effects are referred to as "Hax" by the players of Pokémon -- and in niche competitive communities, moves and items that increase the randomness (lowering accuracy, raising evasion, increasing crit chance) are forbidden.
In many shooter series, the gun's bullet trajectory can be random through mechanics such as bloom or bullet spread. This sort of mechanic proves especially problematic in games of higher kill times, as the longer an engagement lasts, the more opportunity there is for the randomness to affect the outcome of a battle between individuals.
Throughout League of Legends' development, various random factors such as "chances" to stun, critical chance being available at level 1 through masteries, the ability to dodge basic attacks (and at one point, towers), and Gangplank's ultimate have all been either stripped or reworked in a manner that makes them more consistent and predictable.
So, clearly with the fact that randomness can affect the outcome of a game, or greatly influence it without the player being able to predict it, randomness is bad, right?
I won't use my catchphrase (No, shut up, you're wrong.) here, but I will offer further insight on why a certain degree of randomness can be useful.
First, I'm going to bring up the game Connect Four. This game has no true randomness. Each player has full control over the actions he or she takes. There are no arbitrary influences on the game except for the selection of who goes first. So, this game is a perfect example of determining who is better at the game, yes?
No, shut up, you're wrong (there, I got to use it.) Connect Four is a SOLVED GAME. If played correctly, it is impossible for the first player to lose. He or she can force a win regardless of any action taken by the opposition. Checkers is a solved game. Played perfectly by both sides, the game ends in a draw. Chess is, with our current level of technology, too complex for an absolute solution, but has been solved for all 7-piece end game situations.
Solved games mean there is an ultimate barrier on the level at which a player can out-play another. Ultimately, the game's rule set already has determined the winner, and the interactions of the players are completely meaningless. This is poor.
If we were, however, to remove all randomness from the games I mentioned above, only one of those could eventually become a solved game (Pokémon.) The others all have one distinct difference from board games that makes the implementation of randomness completely unnecessary.
They each require mechanical skill. Players can out-position, out-maneuever, out-shoot, out-itemize, or out-skill their opponents in various ways through methods of both strategic and mechanical play. Inconsistencies in gameplay more often come from the player's failure to properly control rather than the game determining they have failed through arbitrary rulesets, dice rolls, et cetera.
Let's take a closer look at Halo. In Halo Reach, for example, Bungie implemented a mechanic known as Bloom. As a player fired faster than the arbitrarily determined ideal rate of fire, the gun's accuracy would drop, leading to missed shots regardless of the player aiming properly. This was counterintuitive given the game's comparatively long kill times (compared to not only other Halo titles, but more specifically to other shooters which included Bloom, which often have instant kills for headshots). In any individual engagement, players' primary goals are to kill the opposition prior to being killed themselves, which means firing at the fastest rate of fire is often optimal, even if it becomes a gamble.
In this system, players were not punished for missing (as they would be in the case of an instant kill headshot game) -- but rather, punished for engaging. Scoring a kill merely meant you had to immediately disengage (which was not often possible) or else start out at a huge disadvantage in any ensuing engagements. This drastically reduced the power of an individual in games.
This implementation of randomness is completely unnecessary, as it only serves to limit the individual's capability for outplaying, rather than to facilitate the potentially intended goal of assisting less skilled players in scoring kills. If the designers wished to include a cadence to assist newer players, the "bloom" should've been replaced by a sort of on-board aim assistance for the gun. As the rate of fire increases, the computer's "processing speed" decreases, reducing the aim assistance and bullet magnetism of the gun and making the bullet actually fire more accurately in regards to the player's reticule. In the case of high levels of player skill, the players can shoot at the max rate of fire without being punished for their level of skill. In the case of lower levels of player skills, players can fire at cadence with moderate accuracy and still be able to score kills in a consistent number of shots.
In Halo 4, a new form of randomness was implemented in the game's Ordnance system. Personally, I like ordnance. I even don't mind some degree of randomness in the ordnance. However, the implementation in the release version of Halo 4 was entirely out of whack. Players could get anything from a set of extra grenades to the most powerful weapons in the game, just for earning enough points to call down a weapon.
Players could press any of three directional pad buttons to call down a randomly generated weapon, item, or power-up upon acquiring Ordnance. Interestingly, there were three "classes" of weapons in the game -- Human, Covenant, or Promethean. I found it odd that the Orndance choices were not first tied to selecting one of these three classes to further specify what kind of weapon ordnance the player could then get. After selecting a class of weapon, the three directional options could've then been reduced to something along the lines of "Close Range" (Shotgun, Scattershot, Energy Sword, Gravity Hammer), "Explosive" (Sticky Detonator, Concussion Rifle, or any of the grenade choices), and "Powerup" (available to all 3 class choices, randomly selects Speed Boost, Overshield, or Damage Boost). The "up" button could be used to return a menu and investigate the other options. It would reduce the randomness and improve a player's ability to quickly determine what they want.
Alternatively, they could've been organized in a manner that focused on primarily what they improved -- Left = Mobility. Speed Boost, Jetpack, Thruster Pack. Down = Defense. Overshield, Hardlight Shield, Regenerator. Right = Offense. Damage Boost, various mid-tier weapons like the Railgun or Concussion rifle. The main reason I defend the possibility of randomness in the Ordnance system is that regardless of the choice, they are all better than whatever the CURRENT state of the player is. There's no chance that the randomness will yield a worse outcome.
In League of Legends, there are very few random factors remaining. Currently Twisted Fate's passive and Critical Chance are the two most notable. Twisted Fate's passive is mostly a non-factor as it averages out to the same effect over the course of a game.
Critical Chance, however, is a factor that has had to be limited and hammered by design into a form that was made acceptable due to various abuse cases due to its random nature. Once again, this is an ability that doesn't have to be random. Rather than critical hits being left to the whims of a calculator, they could instead occur on a pattern.
For example, the Brawler's Gloves grant an 8% chance to critically strike. On average, this means a player will critically strike once every 12.5 attacks. Instead of this system, it could generate a range (for example, 10-15) of "focus" per attack. Once the amount of focus reaches 100, a critical hit occurs. (Yes, this is still random. It does keep the element of randomness, but takes away the most important element that makes randomness bad -- unpredictability.) This would also serve to eliminate problematic edge cases of double critical hits or long strings without critical hits. And since the next "critical hit" would be a trackable occurrence, it would encourage interactivity between players in the case of a laning phase in which one player has generated enough focus to crit. It brings about more options for outplaying and counterplaying situations while reducing the randomness tied to one of the last bastion of offenders of RNG fuckery remaining in League of Legends.
Now, to return to Pokémon. I mentioned randomness is necessary to prevent it from being a solved game. Do this mean I believe that, on a given attack, a player should suddenly be able to deal double damage and disregard any defensive bonuses of the target (how crits work in Pokemon)? No.
The primary issue with the randomness in Pokémon, as a competitive game, is that it is ABRUPT. There is no chance to react to the issue. A crit will always come without prior warning, and will often completely screw you over. This is a huge negative. However, crits do serve a positive purpose in some occasions. They can prevent guaranteed stalls, or help break a wall attempt in an otherwise hopeless case.
So, how do you eliminate the abruptness? It's really quite easy. You delay the effect of the crit until one turn after the game has determined a crit occurs. This could be done by replacing "Critical Hit" with "has been knocked off-balance!" -- where an off-balance character is treated as +0 on defense upgrades, and takes double damage from the next attack to occur. This status effect always only lasts one turn.
A method like this proves more interactive for both the person getting the critical hit as well as the person who was hit, as once you are knocked off-balance, there are a number of choices you can make. The player who has knocked the opponent off-balance will likely want to use their current Pokémon's most powerful move in order to inflict as much damage as possible. The person who has been knocked off-balance has a few options they can select: 1) Leave in the current creature, hoping the damage is not enough and the wall can continue. 2) Use a faster move in order to attempt to knock-out the opposing Pokémon. 3) Attempt to swap out their Pokémon to avoid the critical hit taking effect.
If the attacking player guesses that the defending player will likely use #3, the mind games begin. "Do I stick with my strongest move, or do I try to guess what Pokémon they will swap to, and instead swap my own Pokémon to something that will be strong against their likely switch?" The level of Yomi (again, go read the Sirlin article I linked earlier. He's a great design mind.) that occurs just from this one mechanic change greatly increases the amount of fun and interactivity between the two players while drastically reducing the amount of frustration from a random moment in the game, while still in essence keeping that randomness which can reduce or prevent the game from ultimately devolving into a "solved" game.
Randomness in gaming is not all bad. It creates a certain level of chaos that can, in many circumstances, improve the interactivity between players. However, randomness that exists as an unpredictable factor, or solely to limit the level to which a player can outplay another has no place in a game of skill, and wherever possible should be removed.
Audley Enough, very few games since the most popular early game, Pong, has seemed to grasp this concept and we are left with the artifact of 80s and 90s dungeon crawlers keeping random factors in our games. As the competitive gaming envelope continues to get pushed, hopefully we can stamp out any remaining randomness that limits player skill and replace them with mechanics that instead reward skillful interaction over dumb luck.
So...what is randomness?
The dictionary has a few different definitions both formal (from statistics) and informal regarding the word "random" - but for the sake of this blog, I will be using a bit of a fusion of the definitions. In the context of competition, the word random means...
"Unable to be accurately predicted or controlled based off the knowledge any participating player has available to them at a given time."
To clarify, this means any action within the rules of a game taken by a player cannot, by definition, be random. Being unable to predict an opposing player's actions is not an act of randomness, but rather an act of them out-playing you. Sirlin covers the concept of reading and predicting an opponent's actions quite well in his article about "Yomi Layer 3."
In competitive gaming, many of the anti-randomness camp tend to cling to the argument, "There is no randomness in real sports." But, let's take a closer look at that.
Say you're playing baseball. A ground ball is hit toward third base. On its way there, it hits a rock in the ground and bounces toward second base instead.
It is highly unlikely and completely unrealistic to expect that any player participating in the game has an intimate enough level of knowledge of the field's terrain to know that there was a rock there likely to cause such an awkward bounce. This is an act of randomness.
Say you're playing basketball. You go to participate in the tip off. The referee (not a player participating in the game) throws the ball up, but the referee's hand is not level, sending the ball closer to you than your opponent. Neither you nor your opponent had any idea or say in this occuring. This is an act of randomness.
Football, wind during field goals. A sudden gust or cessation of gusting can completely change the outcome of a kick. Unless the wind is completely consistent, the wind's effects are random. Nature is random.
Granted, many of these random factors are limited and often will only occur in edge cases. Most random factors are able to be reacted to in a way that does not overall affect the outcome of a game. And in most cases, the random factor is not enough to outweigh the differentiation in skill.
Of course, I emphasize my use of the phrase "in most cases" and point back in recent history to the "Inaccurate Reception" -- a play in the 2012 Packers/Seahawks game in which Seahawks QB Russell Wilson threw an interception to Packers' defender M.D. Jennings, which was ruled by the officiating staff as a completion to Seahawks receiver Golden Tate. Even after video review that showed overwhelming evidence this was an incorrect call, the call stood, giving the Seahawks a win in an otherwise lost game. This outcome, completely unpredictable and uncontrollable by the players (and wRONG by the actual rules of the game) was a random factor (by the above definition) that determined the outcome of the game.
This randomness extends into various video games, even those of a competitive nature. Often, random factors are met with a certain level of disdain from the players. Critical hits and status effects are referred to as "Hax" by the players of Pokémon -- and in niche competitive communities, moves and items that increase the randomness (lowering accuracy, raising evasion, increasing crit chance) are forbidden.
In many shooter series, the gun's bullet trajectory can be random through mechanics such as bloom or bullet spread. This sort of mechanic proves especially problematic in games of higher kill times, as the longer an engagement lasts, the more opportunity there is for the randomness to affect the outcome of a battle between individuals.
Throughout League of Legends' development, various random factors such as "chances" to stun, critical chance being available at level 1 through masteries, the ability to dodge basic attacks (and at one point, towers), and Gangplank's ultimate have all been either stripped or reworked in a manner that makes them more consistent and predictable.
So, clearly with the fact that randomness can affect the outcome of a game, or greatly influence it without the player being able to predict it, randomness is bad, right?
I won't use my catchphrase (No, shut up, you're wrong.) here, but I will offer further insight on why a certain degree of randomness can be useful.
First, I'm going to bring up the game Connect Four. This game has no true randomness. Each player has full control over the actions he or she takes. There are no arbitrary influences on the game except for the selection of who goes first. So, this game is a perfect example of determining who is better at the game, yes?
No, shut up, you're wrong (there, I got to use it.) Connect Four is a SOLVED GAME. If played correctly, it is impossible for the first player to lose. He or she can force a win regardless of any action taken by the opposition. Checkers is a solved game. Played perfectly by both sides, the game ends in a draw. Chess is, with our current level of technology, too complex for an absolute solution, but has been solved for all 7-piece end game situations.
Solved games mean there is an ultimate barrier on the level at which a player can out-play another. Ultimately, the game's rule set already has determined the winner, and the interactions of the players are completely meaningless. This is poor.
If we were, however, to remove all randomness from the games I mentioned above, only one of those could eventually become a solved game (Pokémon.) The others all have one distinct difference from board games that makes the implementation of randomness completely unnecessary.
They each require mechanical skill. Players can out-position, out-maneuever, out-shoot, out-itemize, or out-skill their opponents in various ways through methods of both strategic and mechanical play. Inconsistencies in gameplay more often come from the player's failure to properly control rather than the game determining they have failed through arbitrary rulesets, dice rolls, et cetera.
Let's take a closer look at Halo. In Halo Reach, for example, Bungie implemented a mechanic known as Bloom. As a player fired faster than the arbitrarily determined ideal rate of fire, the gun's accuracy would drop, leading to missed shots regardless of the player aiming properly. This was counterintuitive given the game's comparatively long kill times (compared to not only other Halo titles, but more specifically to other shooters which included Bloom, which often have instant kills for headshots). In any individual engagement, players' primary goals are to kill the opposition prior to being killed themselves, which means firing at the fastest rate of fire is often optimal, even if it becomes a gamble.
In this system, players were not punished for missing (as they would be in the case of an instant kill headshot game) -- but rather, punished for engaging. Scoring a kill merely meant you had to immediately disengage (which was not often possible) or else start out at a huge disadvantage in any ensuing engagements. This drastically reduced the power of an individual in games.
This implementation of randomness is completely unnecessary, as it only serves to limit the individual's capability for outplaying, rather than to facilitate the potentially intended goal of assisting less skilled players in scoring kills. If the designers wished to include a cadence to assist newer players, the "bloom" should've been replaced by a sort of on-board aim assistance for the gun. As the rate of fire increases, the computer's "processing speed" decreases, reducing the aim assistance and bullet magnetism of the gun and making the bullet actually fire more accurately in regards to the player's reticule. In the case of high levels of player skill, the players can shoot at the max rate of fire without being punished for their level of skill. In the case of lower levels of player skills, players can fire at cadence with moderate accuracy and still be able to score kills in a consistent number of shots.
In Halo 4, a new form of randomness was implemented in the game's Ordnance system. Personally, I like ordnance. I even don't mind some degree of randomness in the ordnance. However, the implementation in the release version of Halo 4 was entirely out of whack. Players could get anything from a set of extra grenades to the most powerful weapons in the game, just for earning enough points to call down a weapon.
Players could press any of three directional pad buttons to call down a randomly generated weapon, item, or power-up upon acquiring Ordnance. Interestingly, there were three "classes" of weapons in the game -- Human, Covenant, or Promethean. I found it odd that the Orndance choices were not first tied to selecting one of these three classes to further specify what kind of weapon ordnance the player could then get. After selecting a class of weapon, the three directional options could've then been reduced to something along the lines of "Close Range" (Shotgun, Scattershot, Energy Sword, Gravity Hammer), "Explosive" (Sticky Detonator, Concussion Rifle, or any of the grenade choices), and "Powerup" (available to all 3 class choices, randomly selects Speed Boost, Overshield, or Damage Boost). The "up" button could be used to return a menu and investigate the other options. It would reduce the randomness and improve a player's ability to quickly determine what they want.
Alternatively, they could've been organized in a manner that focused on primarily what they improved -- Left = Mobility. Speed Boost, Jetpack, Thruster Pack. Down = Defense. Overshield, Hardlight Shield, Regenerator. Right = Offense. Damage Boost, various mid-tier weapons like the Railgun or Concussion rifle. The main reason I defend the possibility of randomness in the Ordnance system is that regardless of the choice, they are all better than whatever the CURRENT state of the player is. There's no chance that the randomness will yield a worse outcome.
In League of Legends, there are very few random factors remaining. Currently Twisted Fate's passive and Critical Chance are the two most notable. Twisted Fate's passive is mostly a non-factor as it averages out to the same effect over the course of a game.
Critical Chance, however, is a factor that has had to be limited and hammered by design into a form that was made acceptable due to various abuse cases due to its random nature. Once again, this is an ability that doesn't have to be random. Rather than critical hits being left to the whims of a calculator, they could instead occur on a pattern.
For example, the Brawler's Gloves grant an 8% chance to critically strike. On average, this means a player will critically strike once every 12.5 attacks. Instead of this system, it could generate a range (for example, 10-15) of "focus" per attack. Once the amount of focus reaches 100, a critical hit occurs. (Yes, this is still random. It does keep the element of randomness, but takes away the most important element that makes randomness bad -- unpredictability.) This would also serve to eliminate problematic edge cases of double critical hits or long strings without critical hits. And since the next "critical hit" would be a trackable occurrence, it would encourage interactivity between players in the case of a laning phase in which one player has generated enough focus to crit. It brings about more options for outplaying and counterplaying situations while reducing the randomness tied to one of the last bastion of offenders of RNG fuckery remaining in League of Legends.
Now, to return to Pokémon. I mentioned randomness is necessary to prevent it from being a solved game. Do this mean I believe that, on a given attack, a player should suddenly be able to deal double damage and disregard any defensive bonuses of the target (how crits work in Pokemon)? No.
The primary issue with the randomness in Pokémon, as a competitive game, is that it is ABRUPT. There is no chance to react to the issue. A crit will always come without prior warning, and will often completely screw you over. This is a huge negative. However, crits do serve a positive purpose in some occasions. They can prevent guaranteed stalls, or help break a wall attempt in an otherwise hopeless case.
So, how do you eliminate the abruptness? It's really quite easy. You delay the effect of the crit until one turn after the game has determined a crit occurs. This could be done by replacing "Critical Hit" with "has been knocked off-balance!" -- where an off-balance character is treated as +0 on defense upgrades, and takes double damage from the next attack to occur. This status effect always only lasts one turn.
A method like this proves more interactive for both the person getting the critical hit as well as the person who was hit, as once you are knocked off-balance, there are a number of choices you can make. The player who has knocked the opponent off-balance will likely want to use their current Pokémon's most powerful move in order to inflict as much damage as possible. The person who has been knocked off-balance has a few options they can select: 1) Leave in the current creature, hoping the damage is not enough and the wall can continue. 2) Use a faster move in order to attempt to knock-out the opposing Pokémon. 3) Attempt to swap out their Pokémon to avoid the critical hit taking effect.
If the attacking player guesses that the defending player will likely use #3, the mind games begin. "Do I stick with my strongest move, or do I try to guess what Pokémon they will swap to, and instead swap my own Pokémon to something that will be strong against their likely switch?" The level of Yomi (again, go read the Sirlin article I linked earlier. He's a great design mind.) that occurs just from this one mechanic change greatly increases the amount of fun and interactivity between the two players while drastically reducing the amount of frustration from a random moment in the game, while still in essence keeping that randomness which can reduce or prevent the game from ultimately devolving into a "solved" game.
Randomness in gaming is not all bad. It creates a certain level of chaos that can, in many circumstances, improve the interactivity between players. However, randomness that exists as an unpredictable factor, or solely to limit the level to which a player can outplay another has no place in a game of skill, and wherever possible should be removed.
Audley Enough, very few games since the most popular early game, Pong, has seemed to grasp this concept and we are left with the artifact of 80s and 90s dungeon crawlers keeping random factors in our games. As the competitive gaming envelope continues to get pushed, hopefully we can stamp out any remaining randomness that limits player skill and replace them with mechanics that instead reward skillful interaction over dumb luck.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Is that Rally All It Takes?
Today, I'm going to be writing about a relatively unhighlighted facet of top level Halo play. In fact, it's so unmentioned in competitive Halo, I don't even know if players are aware they're doing it or have a term for it. So in this Audley Enough article, I'm going to dub it "Rallying." In this particular article, I will use the term to explain why Pistola is God, and why ToTz and RyaNoob are both much, much better than fans and fellow players give them credit for.
If you've played League of Legends, you're familiar with the laning phase being focused on two major things: killing minions and harassing the opposing laner in order to try to deter them from killing minions. Rallying is much akin to harassing in League of Legends. There are three possible outcomes when you attempt to harass -- you can LOSE the exchange and become behind, and therefore be left to the whims of the opposing laner. You can come out EVEN in the trade, and depending on other factors put yourself in a better or worse position in the lane, or you can come out AHEAD and potentially zone the enemy laner off their minion wave.
So why am I talking about League of Legends in relation to Halo? Because that concept really is what is being applied when I refer to Rallying in Halo. So, now to explain exactly what I mean. You are slightly in cover. An opponent you see is also slightly in cover. You both see each other, and neither of you are in position to really get help from a teammate.
Much like the aforementioned harassing in LoL, there are three outcomes if the two of you attempt to fire upon each other. You miss one shot while your opponent doesn't. Your fate is now less in your control, as you must either back down, or hope your opponent misses a shot. The opposite of this can occur. Or, you can both be even in shots -- leading either to the decision for one player to back down and await allied assistance, or for both players to keep pressing the situation until one or both die.
Generally, players will not attempt to trade deaths. If they're in a situation where they are not ahead in the battle and still have decent positioning themselves, a smart player will back down and try to stay alive with as much health as possible. The other player will either be baited to overextend to chase the kill or also back down / stay in the same position, giving your teammates an opportunity to close and finish the kill.
I refer to these individual gun battle exchanges in which neither player is actually attempting to kill the other as "Rallying" -- they're much different than battles in which a player is mid-push and has no cover to take when a battle starts. In those cases, the player MUST go for the kill. This is specifically for encounters in which both players have cover available to them and may choose to back down at any point. (I chose the term "rallying" because of the word's definition in regards to Tennis. A Rally is an exchange back and forth between two players until a point is scored.)
Pistola is one of the best players at Rallying you will see in Halo. He will fire until either he takes damage in return, or until the opponent catches up in damage, then immediately back down and stay alive. He is what I refer to as a bully (a player that will focus on only favorable rally exchanges). And he's a damn good bully. Granted, there are many more aspects to Pistola's gameplay that make him a fantastic player, but his Bullying is top-notch. And it's a large part of why he's so hard to kill. If he's not confident he'll come out ahead, he won't take the fight.
One of the biggest mistake other players will make when in a Rallying situation...is that they will attempt to force the Rally even if they're still even (trading) or behind (losing / being bullied). This is a great way to get yourself killed either by the player you're shooting, or by his teammate who has now had time to flank you while you focus on your rally.
Players who trade in Rallies constantly are a liability to their teammates. Why? Because if you are even or behind in an exchange, you are relying on your teammates to bail you out in order to come out ahead overall. There are times, however, where being bullied or trading can be a net positive for your team, however...and it's something ToTz was actually superb at, and Ryanoob still does even in Halo 4.
If you are behind your opponents, (i.e., your opponents are between you and your teammates)...then it is okay to trade, lose a trade, or be bullied. Of course, the longer you stay alive, the more net positive you can get out of such a flank. Why is this the case? Because your teammates aren't pulled out of position to save you. They can move naturally. And suddenly your opponents are pinched. Even if they kill you, they have to turn completely around and find your teammates to take advantage of your death. If your flank's timing was proper, this can actually turn into a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 or other net-positive for your team. In certain maps/gametypes, this can actually force a cycle where you then spawn at your base as your opponents spawn outside their base (as your teammates have pushed into the enemy base), and you can set up another rally where you may be forced to sacrifice yourself in exchange for your team gaining several kills.
Now, I do want to make one thing clear: Although you are LIKELY to die by doing one of these intentionally-bad-position flanks, it is not NECESSARY for you to die. The goal is to be like Singed from League of Legends -- you want to draw as much attention to yourself while being as difficult to kill as you possibly can be. The longer the opponents are spending to deal with you, the more freedom your teammates have to make their plays.
Think of it as a split pushing Tryndamere in LoL drawing 3 people to come kill him as he attacks your inhibitor tower in the bottom lane at 40 minutes into the game... well, now your team has an easy 4v2 at Baron...or a free Rocket Launcher that just spawned.
These bully-baiters and self-sacrificing players relieve pressure from other areas of the map by making themselves deceptively easy targets. Much like the adorable Slow Loris...they may look harmless, but stopping to deal with them is actually poisoning your team's chance to win. And ignoring them is just digging yourself a bigger hole.
The concept of Rallying is one that I've personally never heard players really articulate in Halo, though it's obvious from watching gameplay of players like Pistola that it's not outright foreign to top players. You want to come out ahead in an exchange whenever possible. And if you know it's not possible, you want to stay alive long enough to force players out of position to enable your teammates to get their own favorable positions.
Being able to understand when and how to flank to set up a sacrifice that ultimately benefits your team is why RyaNoob is such a valuable, albeit undervalued, player and how teams he's on manage to win even if audience and statistical perception suggests that he is performing poorly. It's a play style that requires tons of situational awareness to pull off successfully...and Audley Enough, top players still don't seem to understand how much freedom they're given from actions of a seemingly "bad play" setting them up for many kills themselves.
If you've played League of Legends, you're familiar with the laning phase being focused on two major things: killing minions and harassing the opposing laner in order to try to deter them from killing minions. Rallying is much akin to harassing in League of Legends. There are three possible outcomes when you attempt to harass -- you can LOSE the exchange and become behind, and therefore be left to the whims of the opposing laner. You can come out EVEN in the trade, and depending on other factors put yourself in a better or worse position in the lane, or you can come out AHEAD and potentially zone the enemy laner off their minion wave.
So why am I talking about League of Legends in relation to Halo? Because that concept really is what is being applied when I refer to Rallying in Halo. So, now to explain exactly what I mean. You are slightly in cover. An opponent you see is also slightly in cover. You both see each other, and neither of you are in position to really get help from a teammate.
Much like the aforementioned harassing in LoL, there are three outcomes if the two of you attempt to fire upon each other. You miss one shot while your opponent doesn't. Your fate is now less in your control, as you must either back down, or hope your opponent misses a shot. The opposite of this can occur. Or, you can both be even in shots -- leading either to the decision for one player to back down and await allied assistance, or for both players to keep pressing the situation until one or both die.
Generally, players will not attempt to trade deaths. If they're in a situation where they are not ahead in the battle and still have decent positioning themselves, a smart player will back down and try to stay alive with as much health as possible. The other player will either be baited to overextend to chase the kill or also back down / stay in the same position, giving your teammates an opportunity to close and finish the kill.
I refer to these individual gun battle exchanges in which neither player is actually attempting to kill the other as "Rallying" -- they're much different than battles in which a player is mid-push and has no cover to take when a battle starts. In those cases, the player MUST go for the kill. This is specifically for encounters in which both players have cover available to them and may choose to back down at any point. (I chose the term "rallying" because of the word's definition in regards to Tennis. A Rally is an exchange back and forth between two players until a point is scored.)
Pistola is one of the best players at Rallying you will see in Halo. He will fire until either he takes damage in return, or until the opponent catches up in damage, then immediately back down and stay alive. He is what I refer to as a bully (a player that will focus on only favorable rally exchanges). And he's a damn good bully. Granted, there are many more aspects to Pistola's gameplay that make him a fantastic player, but his Bullying is top-notch. And it's a large part of why he's so hard to kill. If he's not confident he'll come out ahead, he won't take the fight.
One of the biggest mistake other players will make when in a Rallying situation...is that they will attempt to force the Rally even if they're still even (trading) or behind (losing / being bullied). This is a great way to get yourself killed either by the player you're shooting, or by his teammate who has now had time to flank you while you focus on your rally.
Players who trade in Rallies constantly are a liability to their teammates. Why? Because if you are even or behind in an exchange, you are relying on your teammates to bail you out in order to come out ahead overall. There are times, however, where being bullied or trading can be a net positive for your team, however...and it's something ToTz was actually superb at, and Ryanoob still does even in Halo 4.
If you are behind your opponents, (i.e., your opponents are between you and your teammates)...then it is okay to trade, lose a trade, or be bullied. Of course, the longer you stay alive, the more net positive you can get out of such a flank. Why is this the case? Because your teammates aren't pulled out of position to save you. They can move naturally. And suddenly your opponents are pinched. Even if they kill you, they have to turn completely around and find your teammates to take advantage of your death. If your flank's timing was proper, this can actually turn into a 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 or other net-positive for your team. In certain maps/gametypes, this can actually force a cycle where you then spawn at your base as your opponents spawn outside their base (as your teammates have pushed into the enemy base), and you can set up another rally where you may be forced to sacrifice yourself in exchange for your team gaining several kills.
Now, I do want to make one thing clear: Although you are LIKELY to die by doing one of these intentionally-bad-position flanks, it is not NECESSARY for you to die. The goal is to be like Singed from League of Legends -- you want to draw as much attention to yourself while being as difficult to kill as you possibly can be. The longer the opponents are spending to deal with you, the more freedom your teammates have to make their plays.
Think of it as a split pushing Tryndamere in LoL drawing 3 people to come kill him as he attacks your inhibitor tower in the bottom lane at 40 minutes into the game... well, now your team has an easy 4v2 at Baron...or a free Rocket Launcher that just spawned.
These bully-baiters and self-sacrificing players relieve pressure from other areas of the map by making themselves deceptively easy targets. Much like the adorable Slow Loris...they may look harmless, but stopping to deal with them is actually poisoning your team's chance to win. And ignoring them is just digging yourself a bigger hole.
The concept of Rallying is one that I've personally never heard players really articulate in Halo, though it's obvious from watching gameplay of players like Pistola that it's not outright foreign to top players. You want to come out ahead in an exchange whenever possible. And if you know it's not possible, you want to stay alive long enough to force players out of position to enable your teammates to get their own favorable positions.
Being able to understand when and how to flank to set up a sacrifice that ultimately benefits your team is why RyaNoob is such a valuable, albeit undervalued, player and how teams he's on manage to win even if audience and statistical perception suggests that he is performing poorly. It's a play style that requires tons of situational awareness to pull off successfully...and Audley Enough, top players still don't seem to understand how much freedom they're given from actions of a seemingly "bad play" setting them up for many kills themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)