The term "competitive" is a bad fit
Imbalanxd
Join Date: 2011-06-15 Member: 104581Members
Join Date: 2011-06-15 Member: 104581Members
<div class="IPBDescription">lets edit the NS dictionary</div>The phrase "competitive play" bugs me a little, because I don't think its accurate, and can confuse the situation at times. I don't mind when its used during a tournament, or some other such official event, because then it makes perfect sense. When it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, is when talking about gameplay and balance. Let me first qualify the difference I see between competitive play, and its counterpart.
The two types of play in NS2 are competitive and public. What public play is is quite obvious and self explanatory; games which involve the general public, consisting of random players placed into two teams. However the same is not true for competitive play. Competitive means there is competition, there is some sort of ranking at work here, some sort of official tournament being played in. Though take those same people and put them all in one team in a public game, and it is no longer competitive, even though the team is still just as good and the gameplay implications remain unchanged.
The difference is not where or when the game is held. The difference is not even how good a player is from one to the other, because the people considered competitive are not necessarily the best aimers or the best fades etc. Take a game of counter strike for example. You can have a team of crackshots who never miss, but if they are all going in their own direction when the game starts, there is always a cap to how good the team can be. The difference arises when there is a set strategy in place. When the progression of the round isn't random and decided by the whim of a player. When a team moves together with purpose to accomplish predetermined goals. <b>That </b>is when the level of play changes, because anyone can do a 360 no scope.
In a game like NS2, the difference is obviously much greater. When every player knows exactly what they are doing, and doesn't need to be told explicitly where to go by the commander, that is when the level of play changes. When the commander enters the game with as much of a set strategy in mind as a starcraft player would, and his units know the strategy too, that is when the gameplay becomes "competitive". When, instead of being random, the teams goals and movements are organised. That is when the gameplay and balance considerations are different, not just because its a tournament.
So in balance discussions, when referring to a tier of gameplay above that of random and unfocused public play, lets call it organised play. And when we refer to the games that occur during tournaments, lets call that competitive.
The two types of play in NS2 are competitive and public. What public play is is quite obvious and self explanatory; games which involve the general public, consisting of random players placed into two teams. However the same is not true for competitive play. Competitive means there is competition, there is some sort of ranking at work here, some sort of official tournament being played in. Though take those same people and put them all in one team in a public game, and it is no longer competitive, even though the team is still just as good and the gameplay implications remain unchanged.
The difference is not where or when the game is held. The difference is not even how good a player is from one to the other, because the people considered competitive are not necessarily the best aimers or the best fades etc. Take a game of counter strike for example. You can have a team of crackshots who never miss, but if they are all going in their own direction when the game starts, there is always a cap to how good the team can be. The difference arises when there is a set strategy in place. When the progression of the round isn't random and decided by the whim of a player. When a team moves together with purpose to accomplish predetermined goals. <b>That </b>is when the level of play changes, because anyone can do a 360 no scope.
In a game like NS2, the difference is obviously much greater. When every player knows exactly what they are doing, and doesn't need to be told explicitly where to go by the commander, that is when the level of play changes. When the commander enters the game with as much of a set strategy in mind as a starcraft player would, and his units know the strategy too, that is when the gameplay becomes "competitive". When, instead of being random, the teams goals and movements are organised. That is when the gameplay and balance considerations are different, not just because its a tournament.
So in balance discussions, when referring to a tier of gameplay above that of random and unfocused public play, lets call it organised play. And when we refer to the games that occur during tournaments, lets call that competitive.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
there is only two things in a balance talk.. competitive + pub. Please don't try and introduce a 3rd term.. its already impossible to balance for both, let alone all three.
Public play can be, in a sense, competitive play. Competitive play is (hopefully) always organised play. But public play cannot be organised play.
I have played on public servers in NS1 that choose teams through the captain system. Wouldn't that be public play being organised?
To me, organised play isn't simply experienced players who know to listen to what the commander says. Organised play is when the players don't need to listen to the commander in order to know what they should do. Organised play is when the round starts and one alien immediately goes gorge because he knows he needs to lock down reactor because the commander is expanding their first, and one skulk needs to protect him while the other players put pressure on key locations. Essentially, organised play is planned, predetermined play. You can't plan things with random people.
The only reason people know what to do at the start is because they plan within the first five minutes then "ready up" to start the game. I dont think any "competitive" clan out there just starts a game cold and knows what to do without commander direction (which is his/her role). I find your definition lacking and not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than upping your post count. Each word can be argued for and against but the community accepted word is "Competitive".
-Align<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Could you refer me to these threads perhaps?
<!--quoteo(post=1987861:date=Oct 6 2012, 05:18 PM:name=RisingSun)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RisingSun @ Oct 6 2012, 05:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1987861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason people know what to do at the start is because they plan within the first five minutes then "ready up" to start the game. I dont think any "competitive" clan out there just starts a game cold and knows what to do without commander direction (which is his/her role). I find your definition lacking and not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than upping your post count. Each word can be argued for and against but the community accepted word is "Competitive".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you do understand why the term "competitive" is not always correct, right? And you understand that when referring to discussions involving balance and gameplay, the term "competitive" is never correct, right? In which case you do understand that what I'm trying to accomplish is to persuade people to use a word which isn't incorrect, right?
There are only two types of play, pub and competitive.
Casual or serious.
Serious can be broken into 'gathers/clan'.
Still confused.
There are only two types of play, pub and competitive.
Casual or serious.
Serious can be broken into 'gathers/clan'.
Still confused.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the difference comes in when talking about balance. When people say that games need to be balanced differently for different skill levels, you need to be able to define what that skill difference is. For a game like NS2, that becomes difficult. Does the difference come in due to improvements in player's aim? How about a player's ability to play Fade? Is it because a team has a more strategic commander? Is it all of these things? What if a team has only one of these things? Would they still fall under "competitive" in balance discussions? What are the implications of that?
To me, competitive is just completely the wrong word. it implies that the difference is the setting. A group of 6 players adheres to a certain balance paradigm when they all join a random server, but that suddenly changes when they are playing in the guru cup? I think not.
In my opinion, the key skill element affecting these balance differences needs to be identified, and I don't think it relates to individual skill with a marine or alien, or at least it doesn't relate to that as much as it does to organisation and coordination.
I wouldn't object though, if someone wanted to put forth "leet mofo play".
He says, bumping the thread to the top. if you are going to make up reasons, at least be dedicated to making them seem plausible.
Competitive play is 6v6 between skilled players. Pub play is 9v9 with randoms. I don't feel any need for an intermediate term.
What is 9v9 with skilled players, and what is 6v6 with randoms?
There, fixed that for you..
The individual "skill level" of a player or his motivation as to "why he plays", has no impact at all on overall balance mechanics, the player count on the other hand does.
So in terms of balance discussions the only difference should be the playercount and how certain game mechanics scale with increased player numbers.
As such 6v6 has established itself as a kind of "sweetspot" to balance scaling mechanics around for competitive play in NS, while on higher/lower playernumbers there are still certain issues imbalancing the game towards a specific team.
The inclusion of P.res was originally meant to deal with this issue, to keep the game balanced regardless of playernumbers. But i'm not sure that has really worked out.
At this point i still think the best route would have been to go with 2 different modes/configs. Because the actual "public random play" has suffered from way too many changes that only served to balance the dedicated 6v6 gameplay.
But to get back on topic: In an ideal world every match of NS2 would be "organized", not just the competitive ones. So i don't really think the "organized" part is that important of an difference. Unless we want to assume that everybody playing on public servers does not understand how the game works and just messes around at random. If we assume that, then NS2 as a "Game" could be considered failure. Because a game, that nobody understands how to play, is a failed one.
Maybe if we lived in America and were fat. Ooooh snap.