How to balance skill difference in players?

[[Corn]]

This mindset is why I consider the majority of casual gamers idiots.

 

[shuall]

Yes, if you want competition and want to improve your skills, which you all obviously do, you turn these things off. If you just want to pop a random game in and laugh with a bunch of friends, you're allowed to have these on.
That was what the poor analogy with the kindergartners was trying to explain. I was not saying pit kids against athletes. I was saying that you play differently with kindergartners than you do with athletes because your goals are different.

When you say,

Why exactly should people putting many more hours into skill and practice not be wiping the floor with people that don't?

It's because it's boring. We already agreed that people who do that are jerks and that it's a crappy way to spark interest in the game.

When the heck did we agree on that? I can easily say that those who want a handout for skill instead of putting in the time to get better are a bunch of self entitled jerks.

My bad, here's some quotes from other comments that back up my point.

If you want to have a fun multiplayer time and your butt-faced friend is keeping you from having a shred of a chance, you need to pick better friends, not better games.

Then dont be a **** when playing with friends and push them slowly. Especially when trying to introduce new players to the game
I could be the best Tennis player in the world, but I would never play the way I could play in a competition when playing with my little sister.

I assumed we all agreed that steamrolling someone who is new to the game would generally be a crappy thing to do.

You guys keep saying that someone with skill shouldn't be getting handouts, but if losing doesn't really matter in the match, why not? If you don't care about losing and the handout is funny, it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. When the match is over, whoever happens to be winner feels good because they get the gold star next to their name, and the losers don't care because it could have been anyone that won. The argument against this is that they won't get pushed as hard to get better at the game. This doesn't really seem that important to me, but I can see FlamingForce, Blue Warrior, KumaOso, [Corn], etc., do feel that this important, which is why I added your points to the OP. I'm going to keep trying to explain myself, because I can.

All you need to have fun with a party game is everyone to know the basic rules, so you can just pull it out whenever, no practice, no advanced techniques, just fun. Sometimes it's hilarious to try to lose and win despite your best efforts. Like playing Skyrim as a naked goblin and refusing to add any armor or clothes; just running around attacking villagers, etc. Or when you just play as fox in a 4player FFA and just c-stick across the map and decimate everyone, including people who are much better than you. Competitive players would look down their noses at this, because the players are playing it wrong and they'll never get any better at the game by playing like that.

I'm not stupid; I understand that these things don't facilitate improvement as much as good teacher or crushing defeat would, but I don't put as much importance on that as others do. Nintendo and other games seem to back me up, because they still have these things in the game despite the outcries and execration of the competitive community.

I feel frustrated too, and if you feel like you can't explain yourself any better than you possibly have, I get it, and I don't hold any ill will towards you for not wanting to get angry again, and try to explain your point again. But please, throw me a bone. I'm not just saying, "No, that's stupid. U guys are dumb". I'm trying to explain my points and arguments to your points. I feel like I'm reaching the same point as FlamingForce, where I can't explain my points any better, which is sad, because I did such a poor job of explaining myself to begin with.

FlamingForce, you can just uncheck the 'Watch this thread...' option when you reply if you don't want to be pestered with updates. I appreciate the input, though (<- not sarcastic, seriously. Crap...it's hard to not sound sarcastic with text. Honestly, your comments did help me to understand more your and my positions).

 

[[Corn]]

Yes, if you want competition and want to improve your skills, which you all obviously do, you turn these things off. If you just want to pop a random game in and laugh with a bunch of friends, you're allowed to have these on.
That was what the poor analogy with the kindergartners was trying to explain. I was not saying pit kids against athletes. I was saying that you play differently with kindergartners than you do with athletes because your goals are different.


My bad, here's some quotes from other comments that back up my point.


I assumed we all agreed that steamrolling someone who is new to the game would generally be a crappy thing to do.

You guys keep saying that someone with skill shouldn't be getting handouts, but if losing doesn't really matter in the match, why not? If you don't care about losing and the handout is funny, it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. When the match is over, whoever happens to be winner feels good because they get the gold star next to their name, and the losers don't care because it could have been anyone that won. The argument against this is that they won't get pushed as hard to get better at the game. This doesn't really seem that important to me, but I can see FlamingForce, Blue Warrior, KumaOso, [Corn], etc., do feel that this important, which is why I added your points to the OP. I'm going to keep trying to explain myself, because I can.

All you need to have fun with a party game is everyone to know the basic rules, so you can just pull it out whenever, no practice, no advanced techniques, just fun. Sometimes it's hilarious to try to lose and win despite your best efforts. Like playing Skyrim as a naked goblin and refusing to add any armor or clothes; just running around attacking villagers, etc. Or when you just play as fox in a 4player FFA and just c-stick across the map and decimate everyone, including people who are much better than you. Competitive players would look down their noses at this, because the players are playing it wrong and they'll never get any better at the game by playing like that.

I'm not stupid; I understand that these things don't facilitate improvement as much as good teacher or crushing defeat would, but I don't put as much importance on that as others do. Nintendo and other games seem to back me up, because they still have these things in the game despite the outcries and execration of the competitive community.

I feel frustrated too, and if you feel like you can't explain yourself any better than you possibly have, I get it, and I don't hold any ill will towards you for not wanting to get angry again, and try to explain your point again. But please, throw me a bone. I'm not just saying, "No, that's stupid. U guys are dumb". I'm trying to explain my points and arguments to your points. I feel like I'm reaching the same point as FlamingForce, where I can't explain my points any better, which is sad, because I did such a poor job of explaining myself to begin with.

FlamingForce, you can just uncheck the 'Watch this thread...' option when you reply if you don't want to be pestered with updates. I appreciate the input, though (<- not sarcastic, seriously. Crap...it's hard to not sound sarcastic with text. Honestly, your comments did help me to understand more your and my positions).

Thats just gambling without any reason to win anything.

Whats the point?

 

[shuall]

64 and Melee did this with the Handicap system. Brawl just started you at a higher %.

Beyond an optional handicap system, items, and certain stages, it'd be counterproductive to give too much aid to the new player that also hurts the more experienced player's experience. And I find it surprising that some people want to throw skill out the door when it comes to casual play.

But hold on, how would this apply to 1p or online? If the gameplay is now based off random and lulzy happenings and not skill, is 1p just a faceroll for everyone and online just a bunch of random happenings, so the lowest skilled player is now on equal footing and no one really has competition anymore?

Thats just gambling without any reason to win anything.

Whats the point?

So, yeah, I thought someone would bring this up. Good point.
If it's a game, it can't be entirely random, because then you're basically just playing a funny video slot machine. This brings me back to my original point, how much should randomness be involved? Where is the happy medium between cold-hearted annihilation by a more skilled player, and "lulzy happenings" with no skill? You could still find enjoyment in a funny video slot machine, and you could still find plenty of enjoyment in getting creamed in a competitive match, but there is a spot in between which has both the enjoyments mid-match of seeing a well-executed maneuver and the hilarity of a random pill-splosion ending the match.

 

[[Corn]]

So, yeah, I thought someone would bring this up. Good point.
If it's a game, it can't be entirely random, because then you're basically just playing a funny video slot machine. This brings me back to my original point, how much should randomness be involved? Where is the happy medium between cold-hearted annihilation by a more skilled player, and "lulzy happenings" with no skill? You could still find enjoyment in a funny video slot machine, and you could still find plenty of enjoyment in getting creamed in a competitive match, but there is a spot in between which has both the enjoyments mid-match of seeing a well-executed maneuver and the hilarity of a random pill-splosion ending the match.

A game has to have a point or objective. You can either cater to the competitive side or the I dont give a damn im going to go play the newest generic shooter by myself crowd then scream and leave.
Skill is the most important factor in creating a competitive ruleset. Any and all chances to remove randomness, which detracts from skill, is actively encouraged.

Casual players, not like the ones you are describing at all, are generally precursors to competitive players. Its not like all comp players woke up with skills. If they like a game and want to play with others who do, generally comp is the right decision. I like this game, therefore I play it alot, therefore I naturally get better. When someone better then me pops up I have new goal to reach and when I make the goal, I feel sucessful.

The casual players you are describing are the spoiled brats raised on the notion that people are simply good or are obsessive about things. No, thats stupid.

The players you are describing are like if the Olympics didnt have entry qualifications and a Junior High Track Player decided to enter for "fun". He got his ass whooped, but instead of learning on the experience and adapting by practicing or steadily making his way up he cries to the directors of the Olympics saying that skill should be equalized. He then gets called an idiot and lives the rest of his life brainwashed by his own incredibly immature notions.

The players you are describing want a game based on the principles of insanity.


This is a competitive forums(generally), posting ideas like is announcing to the world that you are either highly uneducated about the specific subject or simply hate people who try.

 

[shuall]

A game has to have a point or objective. You can either cater to the competitive side or the I dont give a damn im going to go play the newest generic shooter by myself crowd then scream and leave.
Skill is the most important factor in creating a competitive ruleset. Any and all chances to remove randomness, whcih etracts from skill, is actively encouraged.

So, as I understand, there are competitive players, and then there are scum. Really? There's no other option? True, part of the fun of games is the competitive element, but is it possible to enjoy playing with friends when competition is merely an element and not the overarching goal?

Casual players, not like the ones you are describing at all, are generally precursors to competitive players. Its not like all comp players woke up with skills. If they like a game and want to play with others who do, generally comp is the right decision. I like this game, therefore I play it alot, therefore I naturally get better. When someone better then me pops up I have new goal to reach and when I make the goal, I feel sucessful.

It would be my hope that all my casual friends pick up the game as competitively as I do. Unfortunately, everyone hasn't and some are just content to only play 4 person FFA as kirby and kirbycide the entire match. Sure, it's infuriating as another player if I'm actually trying to get better, but when I'm just like "forget it" and pick kirby as well, then we both have a grand old time with the other two players on final destination. They're different mindsets, and once I change my goals from winning to just having fun with friends, I don't get angry when someone plays like that, or when a pill randomly kills me. I enjoy getting better at the game, I also sometimes enjoy that this game includes items, which are hilarious.

The casual players you are describing are the spoiled brats raised on the notion that people are simply good or are obsessive about things. No, thats stupid.

I don't know about their views on the state of inherent human morality, but I'm pretty sure that they're not all spoiled brats.

The players you are describing are like if the Olympics didnt have entry qualifications and a Junior High Track Player decided to enter for "fun". He got his *** whooped, but instead of learning on the experience and adapting by practicing or steadily making his way up he cries to the directors of the Olympics saying that skill should be equalized. He then gets called an idiot and lives the rest of his life brainwashed by his own incredibly immature notions.

The players you are describing want a game based on the principles of insanity.

The Olympics are, in fact, 'games', but are categorically different from other 'games' like apples to apples or ssbm. The point and focus of the Olympic games is to find the most skilled players in the world. The casuals I describe don't sound like spoiled brats, but that runner does. He was not playing casually, if he was, he would have been so excited to show his friends pictures of him getting smoked by Usain Bolt. Contrast the Olympics with party games (apples to apples, charades, pictionary, taboo, etc), comedy gameshows like 'Whose line is it anyway?', MXC, Hole in the Wall, etc, or even drinking games, for that matter. When these games are played, they are not played to find the most skilled player, they are played mainly for the social benefit. Any game can fall into either of these categories, it really depends on the people playing it. That was a point earlier, that ssb shouldn't include any mechanics to do this, because it's up to the players how they want to play the game. I don't think it's detrimental to include options that do nothing to increase the competitive aspect, but instead only increase the social utility of the game.

This is a competitive forums(generally), posting ideas like is announcing to the world that you are either highly uneducated about the specific subject or simply hate people who try.

Thanks for the heads up, man.

Parting note: I think that's the great thing about smash. It can serve either purpose very well. It has a shallow enough learning curve to pick up the basics within a couple minutes allowing it to be a simple game to facilitate social interaction, but it has such depth as to allow competition, and players to showcase real skill and ability. This is unlike games like apples to apples or charades, where it is possible to get better at it, but the ceiling is much lower than ssbm, so there aren't really a whole lot charades tournaments (at least not in my area).

 

[[Corn]]

So, as I understand, there are competitive players, and then there are scum. Really? There's no other option? True, part of the fun of games is the competitive element, but is it possible to enjoy playing with friends when competition is merely an element and not the overarching goal?

Im imply that no heavy attention should be given to those who have no motivation to get better at something they enjoy if the means are available to them. In design, you pay attention to those who will actively use and refer/remember your product, not those who will drop it on a whim.

It would be my hope that all my casual friends pick up the game as competitively as I do. Unfortunately, everyone hasn't and some are just content to only play 4 person FFA as kirby and kirbycide the entire match. Sure, it's infuriating as another player if I'm actually trying to get better, but when I'm just like "forget it" and pick kirby as well, then we both have a grand old time with the other two players on final destination. They're different mindsets, and once I change my goals from winning to just having fun with friends, I don't get angry when someone plays like that, or when a pill randomly kills me. I enjoy getting better at the game, I also sometimes enjoy that this game includes items, which are hilarious.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, as you listed the most common response to making non skilled players have a chance at winning, which is adding luck while still retaining a goal. Your OP is heavily suggestive in context regarding game catagories. No true definition exists to describe the levels besides personal judgement based on individual difficulty(whether fake or not)

I don't know about their views on the state of inherent human morality, but I'm pretty sure that they're not all spoiled brats.

A brat is a term used to describe someone acting incorrectly in an easily preventable situation that they got themselves into. You implied that they disliked losing, yet liked winning. A game cannot be a game without both concepts being clearly defined. Complaining about a problem that you can correct, yet choose not to based on personal ideologies and instead bringing up irrational or emotional arguments to distract yourself from the original option is disgusting.

The Olympics are, in fact, 'games', but are categorically different from other 'games' like apples to apples or ssbm. The point and focus of the Olympic games is to find the most skilled players in the world. The casuals I describe don't sound like spoiled brats, but that runner does. He was not playing casually, if he was, he would have been so excited to show his friends pictures of him getting smoked by Usain Bolt. Contrast the Olympics with party games (apples to apples, charades, pictionary, taboo, etc), comedy gameshows like 'Whose line is it anyway?', MXC, Hole in the Wall, etc, or even drinking games, for that matter. When these games are played, they are not played to find the most skilled player, they are played mainly for the social benefit. Any game can fall into either of these categories, it really depends on the people playing it. That was a point earlier, that ssb shouldn't include any mechanics to do this, because it's up to the players how they want to play the game. I don't think it's detrimental to include options that do nothing to increase the competitive aspect, but instead only increase the social utility of the game.

Change it to Athletic Competition if you desire. We also have lower standards o subset of rules for players with physical or mental problems that they cannot correct. This is not true for any of the people you seem to describe Party games are games with low skill ceilings and floors, simple as that. Competitve games are ones with a high skill ceiling. Smash can be made into both. Games of party nature have no longterm goals for players besides to temporary enjoyment, so it is acceptable that they are brought up rarely and normally cant be practiced. You drink to get drunk. You play a game to win. Removing the basic principles of things removes the purpose of even doing them in the first place.

Parting note: I think that's the great thing about smash. It can serve either purpose very well. It has a shallow enough learning curve to pick up the basics within a couple minutes allowing it to be a simple game to facilitate social interaction, but it has such depth as to allow competition, and players to showcase real skill and ability. This is unlike games like apples to apples or charades, where it is possible to get better at it, but the ceiling is much lower than ssbm, so there aren't really a whole lot charades tournaments (at least not in my area).

All games imply a heavy sense of competition besides ones that are heavily luck based. Look at most children s games for example. You cannot lose or win certain things, but the only goal is to have fun. It is very idiotic to create subsets and rules for games that aren't able to be enjoyed and played for long periods of times by dedicated players.

This is the definition of a game:
"A form of sport or activity, that winning while playing according to rules, is decided by skill, strength, or luck. Alternatively it could simply be activity done for enjoyment or diversions"

Tl;dr
If your friends dont find enjoyment through all forms of the game, they should only play ones they do.
If your friends arent having fun at a competitve game, they either have to grow a pair and practice if they find winnning enjoyable enough to be an issue, or politely ask you to help them progress to your level. No excuse for not being able to solve a simple problem unless they are incapable of actually practicing.(Not owning the game, working, ect..)

There is a difference between holding back and being self handicapped in games. You hold back if you want to provide enjoyment/accesability for others as long as it doesn't completely sacrifice yours. You purposely handicap yourself because you lack the ability to manually hold back yourself. If you arent a robot with one setting, the first option is always the better choice.

 

[salaboB]

You've answered your own question with this statement:

It has a shallow enough learning curve to pick up the basics within a couple minutes allowing it to be a simple game to facilitate social interaction, but it has such depth as to allow competition, and players to showcase real skill and ability.

And here was your initial premise:

"I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai

By making the learning curve in Smash shallow enough, Sakurai has made it not hardcore-exclusive the way the fighting game genre has become. It has nothing to do with allowing brand new players to compete with experienced players.

The only reasonable answer to balancing experience/inexperience remains "apply a handicap," but that's not relevant to the Sakurai quote you started with.

 

[shuall]

The shallow learning curve facilitates social interaction. That's not the only thing Sakurai added to make the game less hardcore. Items, a cartoony aesthetic, and tripping were all introduced for this same reason.

I see that you're fine with the shallow learning curve and a handicapping system because it doesn't affect high-level competitive play. The things that are added to facilitate casual play and discourage competitive are seen by most of the commenters here as a threat to the way you enjoy playing the game. I assume it's because the majority (if not all) of the commenters enjoy playing competitively. It's a good thing they are options which can be turned on and off to your preference.
I keep getting the angry red caterpillar under 'commenter' but 'commentator' is not the word I'm looking for.

PS. Thank you salaboB for commenting without calling me an idiot. It's heartening.

PPS. I think tripping doesn't facilitate casual play as much as it discourages competitive, so in that case I think the cons outweigh the pros. That's my opinion, so if I had the option, I would turn it off.

 

[salaboB]

The shallow learning curve facilitates social interaction. That's not the only thing Sakurai added to make the game less hardcore. Items, a cartoony aesthetic, and tripping were all introduced for this same reason.

I don't think tripping deserves to ever be listed as an accessibility, or in any way positive, feature. The first two smash games were both just fine for me to play with my friends without it, and nobody -- not even the casuals -- enjoy having it. Even people taking the game easy don't like to randomly lose control of their character for no obvious (ie, the stage didn't explode or anything) reason.

I think that it doesn't even really discourage competitive play except in making the game a joke in people's minds, competitive players can still compete 100% with tripping.

I do agree that it was intended to be a hit against competitive play, I just don't think it was successful at anything the way it was meant to be.

 

[shuall]

I agree. As far as I know, the only technique tripping really cut down on from melee to brawl was dash-dancing, but that's not a huge difference. It's funny only very rarely when someone trips at an opportune moment (into a falcon punch?); most of the time, I feel like it's a nuisance, and I'm glad that isn't making it to smash 4.

 

[Ulevo]

Can someone please tell me the purpose this thread serves?

 

[nat pagle]

Can someone please tell me the purpose this thread serves?

Nothing but an idealist casual trying to remove variance of skill in the game more than it already has. I don't think ANY game has actually done it to the degree OP desires. Even Mario Kart takes some experience.

 

[[Corn]]

Nothing but an idealist casual trying to remove variance of skill in the game more than it already has. I don't think ANY game has actually done it to the degree OP desires. Even Mario Kart takes some experience.

Well, Wii....

 

[TwistedWinds]

Trying to incorporate more randomness or using the handicap feature is the wrong way to go about it. This video should explain it sufficiently enough:

 

[nat pagle]

Trying to incorporate more randomness or using the handicap feature is the wrong way to go about it. This video should explain it sufficiently enough:

The video says that Noobtubes were a good thing for COD while criticizing "Fu Strategies" (spelling?). That doesn't make sense. The Noobtube was always a Fu Strategy because it exploited One Man Army, Danger Close, and the Grenade Launcher, and was taken out of Black Ops and MW3 I think.

The COD system overall is what made MW2 work, not noobtubing. You started out with garbage weapons and had to unlock everything. Did everyone just give up and quit? No, they liked the reward system for putting in playing time.

But, Smash isn't COD. It'd be more akin to Halo (excluding 4 with loadouts) where everyone starts having access to the same weapons. And to be frank, people aren't just going to quit if spamming Forward Smash isn't enough for them anymore. People can pick up the game. If the online community is higher skilled, then it's their fault for not putting forth effort to learn.

 

[TwistedWinds]

I think you missed the point. The point of the video was to emphasize that newer or less experienced players don't need the playing field leveled by some additional arbitrary feature. What they need are strategies that makes them feel like that had a chance vs an opponent who's better than them. They'll probably still lose if their opponent is better than them but if they feel like that had a chance to win if they improved a bit then they would be more inclined to do so.

An example might be Kirby's down-B. Well, if you stretch it a bit as the move still sucks. It's difficult to think of a smash equivalent of the hundred hands slap.

Of course this only applies to players of around equal skill or versus an opponent who is slightly better. Pros would still steamroll any new or inexperienced players and if you want new players to stand a chance against said pros then you're out of your mind.

 

[nat pagle]

I think you missed the point. The point of the video was to emphasize that newer or less experienced players don't need the playing field leveled by some additional arbitrary feature. What they need are strategies that makes them feel like that had a chance vs an opponent who's better than them. They'll probably still lose if their opponent is better than them but if they feel like that had a chance to win if they improved a bit then they would be more inclined to do so.

An example might be Kirby's down-B. Well, if you stretch it a bit as the move still sucks. It's difficult to think of a smash equivalent of the hundred hands slap.

Of course this only applies to players of around equal skill or versus an opponent who is slightly better. Pros would still steamroll any new or inexperienced players and if you want new players to stand a chance against said pros then you're out of your mind.

I mean, you can spam Mach Tornado or something at a low level, but this is smash, it's too diverse and people will just come up with a counter to it.

 

[shuall]

Trying to incorporate more randomness or using the handicap feature is the wrong way to go about it. This video should explain it sufficiently enough:

I think randomness and handicapping systems are a lot simpler to implement on the developer's side, but the actual design where the power increases at a slower rate with regards to skill is generally much more enjoyable to play.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Randomness is easier, but it's not as good by any stretch. It's merely a copout for proper design.

 

[BaPr]

So, is this thread about how to make the game easier for casuals? Because, the game has techniques that everyone can learn. Plus, it also has a bunch of random items. I think it's good the way it is. You can use items for when playing with friends, and take em off when you want to play competitively, or when you just don't want items.

 

[trash?]

here's how you balance skill difference: set up an environment where you're actively playing against people of your skill level.

see, there's a problem with the mindsets people go into this. the problem here is not the core mechanics need changing, it's that the way those core mechanics are perceived need changing. look at so many of the online games out there, you can go in to them, and it becomes a diceroll if the next people you face are pants-on-head dumb, or a norse god at whatever it is you're playing. that's not the core game's fault, and by attempting to pinpoint it there, you're only suppressing the symptom, while decreasing the quality of the game as a whole. if a game makes you, as a complete newbie, play against someone infinitely better than you, that is a fault of the matchmaking system around the game, and nothing else.

like many other posters have already said, start with a system like TTT2. actively dumbing down a game will not help anything, and will only serve to justify bad game design.

 

[shuall]

I think everyone would agree that online matchmaking based off skill are a godsend to gaming in general.

 

[Vkrm]

I think everyone would agree that online matchmaking based off skill are a godsend to gaming in general.

Not sakurai.

 

[nat pagle]

Not sakurai.

Because it clearly favors the best players.

 

[BaPr]

I hope Sakura gives that option, but I also want an option to fight random skill levels.