Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Share
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:12 pm

    Then in turn say the less rules the better, soooooo divine blessings and mushrooms for everyone?



    Last time I checked, these things were not available in unlimited fashion in the base game.  I think disallowing things that are only mass-available through 3rd party programs is quite different from rules that limit play options within the game.

    Fight Clubs have rules for a reason, and yes I think they could be greatly expanded on.  Not because I care if I lose, but because I care if the playing field is fair.

    If you really cared about that, it would be more sensible to avoid limiting player's builds without objective data.  "Fair" and "balanced" are different objectives from each other by the way.  A FC with almost no rules beyond "no cheating/2v1" is virtually guaranteed to be "fair", regardless of balance.

    ...clothes lines and face masking in the NFL were made against the rules for a very good reason.



    ?  Those rules were made for player safety.  That's an objectively beneficial thing and thus a rational basis for the rule.  I don't see how any dark souls rule has a material impact on player safety.

    What is the rational basis for a given ban in dark souls?  An *opinion* about one thing being too strong?  How can you possibly compare safety regulations to individual opinions that lack any objective backing whatsover?  That doesn't make sense.

    There is lag too ya know.  You can't do anything about some people with horrible connections, but we all have it, and it does affect the gameplay.

    For a point to be relevant in comparisons, it must differ between the options being compared.  I see no evidence that banning a tactic will have a material impact on lag (or if you want we can ban hosts spamming prism stones to deliberately cause lag I guess), and lag can be decisive regardless of tactics used.  Lag is irrelevant to this discussion.


    _________________
    There is no "I" in team.  There is no "we" either.  There is a me.
    Dolan would like you to turn around and pick up that item on the ground.
    avatar
    O1va_
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 78
    Reputation : 11
    Join date : 2013-03-26

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by O1va_ on Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:23 pm

    Animaaal wrote:^TL;DR...at least all of it.  I'm sure I will later though.  I just wanted to say briefly that I find it odd a lot of fight clubs don't allow hard humanity heals.  I'm sure as hell not gonna let you do it.

    Fights could take a long time to finish. In a fight club with many participants thats not very convinient now is it? People do heal in the forest and even then its not impossible to beat 2v1, and it's fun as hell there, why not in 1v1.

    Animaaal wrote:Dark Souls needs rules for a good fight club... deal with it, or accept the TWoD and whatever else it is in the game that is broke.

    TWoD is a game breaking glitch, it was clearly stated in the article that this kind of stuff should be banned.
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:22 pm



    TWoD is a game breaking glitch, it was clearly stated in the article that this kind of stuff should be banned.

    What is TWoD?  At first I thought it was a typo.  Is it TWoP + Dark bead or something?

    Regardless, the assertion that a valid in-game option is a glitch without evidence of that being the case is bogus.  The assumption that something is game-breaking or a glitch without evidence and banning it is exactly the kind of thing that article opposes.


    _________________
    There is no "I" in team.  There is no "we" either.  There is a me.
    Dolan would like you to turn around and pick up that item on the ground.
    avatar
    Sentiel
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3181
    Reputation : 231
    Join date : 2012-11-26
    Age : 29
    Location : Mushroom Kingdom

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Sentiel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:30 pm

    TWoD is Tranquil Walk of Death.

    It's done by using a glitch to buff a Stone Greatsword and using the weapons R2 attack. Normally, it has the same effects like TWoP, but with the buff it damages anything in the effects field with consistent, unblockable damage.

    The glitch is still present in the game, but it's hard to do and most people don't know about it, however the original version of the glitch was very easy to do and could be done by anyone. It was promptly patched.

    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:46 pm

    Sentiel wrote:TWoD is Tranquil Walk of Death.

    It's done by using a glitch to buff a Stone Greatsword and using the weapons R2 attack. Normally, it has the same effects like TWoP, but with the buff it damages anything in the effects field with consistent, unblockable damage.

    The glitch is still present in the game, but it's hard to do and most people don't know about it, however the original version of the glitch was very easy to do and could be done by anyone. It was promptly patched.

    Oh.  That's different then.  I agree with the assertion that it's a gamebreaking glitch.  It's all you would see and nothing else would compete with it.  That's not just over-centralizing, it's bypassing game rules to execute something that beats every other valid tactic without exception.

    drdrack
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 95
    Reputation : 1
    Join date : 2013-06-15
    Location : Everywhere?

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by drdrack on Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:18 pm

    Someone said LoL is balanced, LOL

    Anyway, dark souls really isn't a competitive game, PvP is fun requires certain skill/knownledge and all, but not a competitive game (at least design wise)
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:24 pm

    LoL puts more effort into competitive balance, and is probably closeR.  Considering they still regularly still alter balance, it would be a reach to believe that even the designers think the game is balanced.  A quick perusal of their forums, aside from making one want to bash their face into something or gouge their eyes, also indicates players feel the game is anything but balanced lol.


    _________________
    There is no "I" in team.  There is no "we" either.  There is a me.
    Dolan would like you to turn around and pick up that item on the ground.
    avatar
    Saturday-Saint
    Caffeinated
    Caffeinated

    Posts : 961
    Reputation : 48
    Join date : 2012-12-09
    Age : 25

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Saturday-Saint on Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:12 pm

    IMO balance is not actually a big deal so long as the game is still strategically interesting to play.

    LoL has one of the most annoying forms of balance possible, though, where each bi-weekly patch dramatically shifts the game's balance.


    _________________
    Joking aside.
    avatar
    reim0027
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 6715
    Reputation : 381
    Join date : 2012-01-28

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by reim0027 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:44 pm

    We are never going to convince Animaal. He feels that, since this is an unbalanced game, rules should be made to balance it. He feels strongly about this, and that's fine.

    On the flip side, we feel that it doesn't need to be balanced. The rules, in our opinion, only stifle the game play.

    It is a matter of perspective. I have done both (rules and no rules). And, I prefer the no rules, by far.


    _________________


    PSN usernames: reim0027_2,   reim0027_3,  and reim0027_5.  Skype ID: reim0027  
    Tour of Lordran Soul Levels  //  Official Wiki Fight Club // Forest Invasion Soul Levels // Low Level Invasion Rules
    avatar
    Saturday-Saint
    Caffeinated
    Caffeinated

    Posts : 961
    Reputation : 48
    Join date : 2012-12-09
    Age : 25

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Saturday-Saint on Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:02 am

    I was talking to Mein and drd, actually.


    _________________
    Joking aside.
    avatar
    reim0027
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Posts : 6715
    Reputation : 381
    Join date : 2012-01-28

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by reim0027 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:10 am

    I was talking in general, not related to any specific post.


    _________________


    PSN usernames: reim0027_2,   reim0027_3,  and reim0027_5.  Skype ID: reim0027  
    Tour of Lordran Soul Levels  //  Official Wiki Fight Club // Forest Invasion Soul Levels // Low Level Invasion Rules
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:42 am

    reim0027 wrote:We are never going to convince Animaal.  He feels that, since this is an unbalanced game, rules should be made to balance it.  He feels strongly about this, and that's fine.

    On the flip side, we feel that it doesn't need to be balanced.  The rules, in our opinion, only stifle the game play.

    It is a matter of perspective.  I have done both (rules and no rules).  And, I prefer the no rules, by far.

    But but...putting pressure on people's arguments while using a strong basis to construct one's own is fun!  Occasionally I even get someone who doesn't waver, resort to personal attacks, or simply give up and that's when internet forum debate is at its finest.

    One of the interesting points in a rules debate is the burden of proof.  We are seeing arguments that the game needs to be changed in some capacity, but not much to suggest how any changes proposed make the game better on an objective or logically consistent basis.  Because the community lacks said objective/logically consistent basis, rules instead diverge towards personal preferences...or worse ones that emphasize the strengths of certain builds (often both, unintentionally or otherwise).

    There are rules that reach an objective burden of proof, most notably ones that prevent outright cheating.  There are others that could potentially, but lack in any objective criteria.

    One advantage formats like LoL have is that they consistently track data.  if DS had an equivalent, we'd be able to see the % of time each spell led to victory in 1v1s, # backstabs per match and correlation with victory, match length/success per weapon and much more.  Such information would go a long way towards evaluating what aspect of the game are over or underused, and if interpreted carefully, why.

    But we don't have it, so we instead have speculation.  I suspect for example that fishing doesn't have nearly the success rate to match the community's hatred for it, and neither does dark magic.  I also suspect buff builds, given otherwise equal play, are the largest advantage...especially faith buff builds that can take advantage of anti-magic in some capacity.  The reason I suspect this is that you can simultaneously reduce inbound damage from the highest per-attack sources while increasing your own, at the expense of scaling that wouldn't add much damage or HP to your build elsewhere.

    I might be wrong though, and there's a good chance I am.  Maybe VIT gouge is the strongest.  Maybe quality "high tier" weapons are.  Maybe spears are truly as overpowered as some claim...or maybe their win rate is actually lower than UGS and rapiers.  We don't know unfortunately.  Truly, without a distribution of data across enough users, there is no way of knowing.  As a community the most sensible options would be to make an effort to track this data objectively, or conclude it's not worth it to do so and play the game with few, if any rules.  I don't see very many options that would lead to better overall community involvement or a better player experience on average precisely because opinions formed based on anecdotal evidence and necessarily limited (IE one person's) experience are not and can't be consistent/reliable.

    Animaaal
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3419
    Reputation : 175
    Join date : 2013-01-17

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Animaaal on Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:12 am

    reim0027 wrote:...We are never going to convince Animaal.  He feels that, since this is an unbalanced game, rules should be made to balance it.  He feels strongly about this, and that's fine...

    Thank you reim.

    I'd just like to go on record that I've never said anything like, "Giant Dads should be banned from pvp." or "Your fight Club sucks because it has no rules".  I don't feel that way, and feel I've eaten a lot of shyt for saying something simple like "Imo, community made rules could enhance the game."

    Stamina regeneration can be one of the most lopsided problems imo.  I don't see how a couple small rules about grassing would impede anyone's playstyle drastically.

    B1A1NE had a pretty good thread about it before he took a break.  As a matter of fact I think I disagreed at first, but regardless, I've come to share his opinion.
    avatar
    Bowdownbe4me
    Casual
    Casual

    Posts : 36
    Reputation : 3
    Join date : 2013-04-27

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Bowdownbe4me on Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:45 am

    One advantage formats like LoL have is that they consistently track data.  if DS had an equivalent, we'd be able to see the % of time each spell led to victory in 1v1s, # backstabs per match and correlation with victory, match length/success per weapon and much more.  Such information would go a long way towards evaluating what aspect of the game are over or underused, and if interpreted carefully, why. wrote:
    I've been following this thread and it's time I joined in. I completely agree with everything that Saturday has said, and I'll go into that further in a second, but first I have to respond to this quote.

    Dark Souls pvp isn't balanced, but it *is* fair. We can all choose to use the tactics which generally provide easier wins, and we can all choose to try and overcome our opponents who do this as well (by adapting and learning counters). Leveling the playing field by reducing the potency of those tactics which provide higher win ratios is missing the point entirely, as this does not promote player growth. There is no reason to learn how to overcome spear flippers if 1. you regulate them out through player enforced rules, or 2. they are regulated out by developer enforced rules.

    Monitoring the win ratios and other statistics of in-game tactics does little to provide insight into whether or not there are counters to be found. And the discovery of said counters come with time. It's pretty much undeniable that someone using TWoP and dead-angled WotG together will win the vast majority of their fights, but does that mean it's unbeatable or that the likelihood of your survival when facing this is left up to chance? No. You can counter this tactic by learning how to free-aim dead-angle block (I will be posting a video of this counter in the coming weeks on my YouTube channel -  www.youtube.com/bowdownbe4me1 ).

    Attempting to level the playing field is akin to trying to make the whip a viable weapon by dumbing everything else down to its level. There is no need to discover or master advanced "meta" tactics such as free-aim dead-angle blocking when you aren't facing tactics which demand a counter to be learned.

    TL;DR response to the quote: I think you're missing the picture if you are still calling for regulation (even if it's not in the players hands).

    ---
    Ok, now to respond to the topic in general.

    There was a suggestion which popped up that sounds completely fair: why not let those who like to play with regulation do so, and those who don't not? How is the pursuit of regulation a bad thing if we can just split ourselves into groups of like-minded people and be done with it? Paraphrased from before: "if you don't like the FC rules, don't participate."

    There are a couple of issues here. When we split into groups we create "in-groups" and "out-groups" where inevitably animosity sprouts up between them. Those who play with regulations hold those who don't in low esteem, and likewise in reverse. We coin blanket terms such as "tryhard" and "casual" to discredit any validity to the other's play-style. And why does this happen? Why can't we just get along and ignore one another? Because DkS pvp is, in practice, not organized in such a way to facilitate our exclusive encounters with like-minded folks. We have "invaders" and "randoms" and "pvp hotspots" which are a medley of different people with different ideas of what pvp is.

    When you hold yourself to a "regulated standard" and your opponent does not, it's not unlikely that you would consider your loss (in the case that you lose) to be irrelevant or inconsequential. "They were using X, so it's no wonder I lost." (This is entirely supposing that you self-regulated because you already look down upon this tactic in particular. This has no bearing on those who create silly rules for their own amusement). And this mentality inevitably comes out in time, either by not returning the "gg" message, bc'ing out when you encounter that player again, or in the case that you are a negative nancy, sending hatemail for their use of tactics.

    But wait, there's more! Not everyone agrees on which tactics are an issue and which are not! Pretty much for every tactic/weapon/armor/spell that exists, there is a person who feels that it's imbalanced for X reason. When these people bring this mentality to the mutual playing field, it creates a divisive environment where no player is safe from the judgment of another.

    Sure we find a friend or two who play exactly how we like and think what we think, but the point is that with all these opinions on how DkS should or should not be played, you just boiled down the entire DkS pvp community into a select group of two to three (perhaps more) people who judge others outside their clique.

    And as a side note, please don't try to argue that you follow specific rules because you find certain tactics imbalanced *and* still manage not to judge your opponents who choose to use said tactics. If you think those tactics are imbalanced or overpowering, then you are inherently judging anyone who uses them.

    TL;DR over regulation is divisive to the DkS pvp environment and leads to the development of "cliques" which are far more particular and exclusive than the broad brushed "those who regulate" and "those who don't." With so many small groups with so many different ideas of what pvp should be, the DkS pvp community as a whole becomes fractured.
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:40 pm

    Monitoring the win ratios and other statistics of in-game tactics does little to provide insight into whether or not there are counters to be found

    It would nevertheless be useful, for a few reasons:

    1.  It would help to quickly identify powerful strategies, which would then be used and worked around.  IE, development of refined strategies would likely have occurred and continue to occur more rapidly as a result of being able to objectively analyze the efficacy of a tactic.

    2.  It would help identify true statistical outliers.  Something with a 100% win rate or very close would be something like akuma in Sirlin's article example.  These are few and far between.  From a design standpoint it would also provide incentive to buff options near 0% win rate that are clearly not competitively viable.

    3.  On the flip side, typical win% would help discredit assertions that a tactic is overpowered based on anecdotal experience alone; something that has a 52% win rate would almost certainly fail any criteria for being overpowering and would constitute reasonable evidence against a claim that it's too strong.

    To put it another way:  If people using broadswords always won without exception, they would be too good.  They don't always win without exception however, and statistics would show that.  It is likely the case also with spear flipping and other tactics; absent very unusual win% you'd have a reasonable argument to leave them as-is.

    It's pretty much undeniable that someone using TWoP and dead-angled WotG together will win the vast majority of their fights

    It's deniable.  We have no data to suggest these things succeed at an unusual rate.  These things might even constitute poor play in that they consistently fail against good players, to the extent that relying them is a losing proposition.  If they are "banned" and then used unexpectedly, it would not be surprising to see an inflated win rate.

    If the community saw they had a high win rate, builds that counter it (IE VoW of Silence or similar choices) would crop up as a result of knowing it's a strong option in the metagame and drag it down.  IMO anti-magic builds are some of the most under-utilized in the game...but if people saw they had a high win rate maybe that would change and so too would PvP dynamics.

    This is also why part of the framework for rules criteria would have to involve some time between making decisions.  Counters are not always found instantly, but they're almost always found after several years if they exist.  Picking a reasonable time somewhere between the two is best.

    TL;DR response to the quote: I think you're missing the picture if you are still calling for regulation (even if it's not in the players hands).



    Most competitive communities have a baseline regulation of some variety, and regulation isn't inherently bad.  It's inherently costly.  What a community needs is an objective and consistent basis for evaluating whether or not something is damaging competitive depth instead of adding to it.  I'm sure even you would admit that lag-switching should be banned (that's objectively bannable).  Less objective but still likely needing regulation are things like the "Tranquil Walk of Death" glitch, which bypasses most of the in-game mechanics to cause instant death.  Such a tactic would likely carry an enormous win ratio and be over-centralizing, and that would show up in statistics in a way that most valid in game options wouldn't get close to matching.  With statistics, we would have objective evidence that such is the case however.

    Absent such criteria, the game's PvP evolves exactly as you say.

    Cherry tapping people is fun though big grin.  I guess using poor setups on purpose is different from "avoiding things one feels are overpowered" though.  There are some things I won't use on preference alone regardless of whether they are good or bad (IE thinking a piece of equipment looks ugly, but having no competitive qualms against it --> example being smough's set.  I know the designer loved it, but I don't like how it looks.  It's actually an inferior piece of armor and I have no competitive issue with it or any other equipment, but I don't want to wear it lol), and there are things that are fun to use expressly because they're bad. 

    For the latter, there is an inverse relationship between the strength of an option and the satisfaction one can get by beating someone down with it and getting hate mail <3.

    If I'm actually attempting to win however, anything's far game (even ugly equipment, if it provides material utility).  The thing about Dark Souls PvP is that there is incentive to behave in ways that are different from 1v1 utility...IE "trolling" hosts, killing people in unusual ways, or using skills that take advantage of terrain but in other cases would be useless.  The quest for hate mail is never ending!
    avatar
    Bowdownbe4me
    Casual
    Casual

    Posts : 36
    Reputation : 3
    Join date : 2013-04-27

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Bowdownbe4me on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:42 pm

    TheMeInTeam wrote:
    Monitoring the win ratios and other statistics of in-game tactics does little to provide insight into whether or not there are counters to be found

    It would nevertheless be useful, for a few reasons:

    1.  It would help to quickly identify powerful strategies, which would then be used and worked around.  IE, development of refined strategies would likely have occurred and continue to occur more rapidly as a result of being able to objectively analyze the efficacy of a tactic.

    2.  It would help identify true statistical outliers.  Something with a 100% win rate or very close would be something like akuma in Sirlin's article example.  These are few and far between.  From a design standpoint it would also provide incentive to buff options near 0% win rate that are clearly not competitively viable.

    3.  On the flip side, typical win% would help discredit assertions that a tactic is overpowered based on anecdotal experience alone; something that has a 52% win rate would almost certainly fail any criteria for being overpowering and would constitute reasonable evidence against a claim that it's too strong.

    To put it another way:  If people using broadswords always won without exception, they would be too good.  They don't always win without exception however, and statistics would show that.  It is likely the case also with spear flipping and other tactics; absent very unusual win% you'd have a reasonable argument to leave them as-is.

    For points:
    1. Effective strategies make themselves apparent when they beat their competition. I don't think you need statistics to show what needs to be studied / countered. That comes in time.

    2.You're right, but once again I think this is relatively apparent from general play and does not necessarily *need* statistics. If something is extremely effective then people should adopt it, and if counters don't show up then the devs are already well aware of the issue and will handle it with a patch of their own (look back at any one of the many nerfs in DkS).

    3. While this would be true if those who had an issue with handling the tactic were balanced by those who weren't, I feel as though self regulation is so rampant in DkS that we are gimping ourselves when it comes to handling these tactics, and as such the statistics would reflect that. In the current pvp scene chain-stabs have such a stigma that very few players use them. Because of this very few people know how to counter them (which is *NOT* a rock-paper-scissors game of chance, as some would assert). If one were to perform a statistical analysis in this climate, it would likely show a very high win% by players using chain-stabs not because chain-stabs lack a counter, but because the few people who use them are facing the majority who don't know how to handle them.

    It's pretty much undeniable that someone using TWoP and dead-angled WotG together will win the vast majority of their fights

    It's deniable.  We have no data to suggest these things succeed at an unusual rate.  These things might even constitute poor play in that they consistently fail against good players, to the extent that relying them is a losing proposition.  If they are "banned" and then used unexpectedly, it would not be surprising to see an inflated win rate.

    Haha, thanks for calling me on that. I was cutting corners there to save time/length on my message, but as a result I made claims without a backing. What I meant was simply that many people find the TWoP+Wrath combo to be overpowered and/or unbeatable, but that's simply because they haven't explored a means of countering it (probably because it's hardly common enough to do so, considering such tactics are near universally frowned upon in organized pvp). I am 100% in agreement that the only reason these tactics are so difficult to handle for a great portion of players (skilled or not) is because they don't face it nearly enough.

    If the community saw they had a high win rate, builds that counter it (IE VoW of Silence or similar choices) would crop up as a result of knowing it's a strong option in the metagame and drag it down.  IMO anti-magic builds are some of the most under-utilized in the game...but if people saw they had a high win rate maybe that would change and so too would PvP dynamics.

    This is also why part of the framework for rules criteria would have to involve some time between making decisions.  Counters are not always found instantly, but they're almost always found after several years if they exist.  Picking a reasonable time somewhere between the two is best.

    You're certainly right that there are instances where counters don't arise for quite some time, but I would suggest that this is because there is not a necessity of discovering said counters. Even if you worked out through observing statistics that some select few people had put together a certain tactic with a seriously high win%, it doesn't become necessary to discover a counter to this tactic until the tactic itself becomes popular enough that it saturates the pvp scene. In the case of small sample sizes the results don't mean much, and when the sample size is large enough the results (in my opinion) are irrelevant because people are already well aware of the tactic and it's efficiency and can therefore work to counter it or adopt it.

    It's funny that we're arguing the same thing but are in slight disagreement on this. I understand the merit of having facts for the sake of argument, but I tend to prefer the "wild west" approach and put your money where your mouth is when you have a disagreement over in-game tactics. "Oh, you think this is unbeatable and I disagree? Please use that tactic against me and see if I survive." And when it comes to these disagreements, I'd rather head them off before they begin by approaching them with the appropriate mindset: "how do I change to overcome/handle this?" rather than "how do I change the world to fit my needs?"

    Not to mention that I'm hesitant to rely on statistics because they only present how things are in their current state, and not how things will be or could be. I wouldn't be surprised if a statistical analysis of DkS tactics came back to return the figure that spear flipping pyro users are at a massive advantage in pvp, while in reality this is only the case because (as you said before) this tactic is frowned upon/banned in so many instances that people are less aware of how to handle it when they do encounter it. (For the record, since I learned to counter spear flippers 3-4 months ago, I have not lost a single match when facing one!).

    TL;DR response to the quote: I think you're missing the picture if you are still calling for regulation (even if it's not in the players hands).



    Most competitive communities have a baseline regulation of some variety, and regulation isn't inherently bad.  It's inherently costly.  What a community needs is an objective and consistent basis for evaluating whether or not something is damaging competitive depth instead of adding to it.  I'm sure even you would admit that lag-switching should be banned (that's objectively bannable).  Less objective but still likely needing regulation are things like the "Tranquil Walk of Death" glitch, which bypasses most of the in-game mechanics to cause instant death.  Such a tactic would likely carry an enormous win ratio and be over-centralizing, and that would show up in statistics in a way that most valid in game options wouldn't get close to matching.  With statistics, we would have objective evidence that such is the case however.

    Absent such criteria, the game's PvP evolves exactly as you say.

    That's completely fair. I guess I'm just wary of over-reliance on statistics since they  reflect only the current state of how things are, and that current state is already marred by over-regulation and as a result: a widespread incapacity to deal with tactics which do indeed have counters. If we took statistics as reason enough to ban certain tactics to "level the playing field" I'd bet that we'd be banning tactics which some vets already figured out the counters for, but the broader pvp populous had yet to adopt/learn. Either that, or the statistics would call for a ban on an efficient tactic which is still in its infancy (or not used due to player regulation), and therefore too early to have a counter developed/known for it.

    Cherry tapping people is fun though big grin.  I guess using poor setups on purpose is different from "avoiding things one feels are overpowered" though.  There are some things I won't use on preference alone regardless of whether they are good or bad (IE thinking a piece of equipment looks ugly, but having no competitive qualms against it --> example being smough's set.  I know the designer loved it, but I don't like how it looks.  It's actually an inferior piece of armor and I have no competitive issue with it or any other equipment, but I don't want to wear it lol), and there are things that are fun to use expressly because they're bad. 

    For the latter, there is an inverse relationship between the strength of an option and the satisfaction one can get by beating someone down with it and getting hate mail <3.

    If I'm actually attempting to win however, anything's far game (even ugly equipment, if it provides material utility).  The thing about Dark Souls PvP is that there is incentive to behave in ways that are different from 1v1 utility...IE "trolling" hosts, killing people in unusual ways, or using skills that take advantage of terrain but in other cases would be useless.  The quest for hate mail is never ending!
    You're right, I only focused on the dueling side of DkS pvp and completely neglected the fact that not everyone sees it as a competitive environment (or at least not in the same light). I guess that would be an example of a necessary fracturing of the playerbase. Those who troll, pve invade, gank, etc, versus those who duel. However, my qualm is really with the unnecessary fracturing of the dueling population, where everyone and their mother comes up with their own arbitrary rule-set and then subsequently uses it to judge the worth/skill-level of other players. The latter is an issue we can handle.

    Marino.
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3306
    Reputation : 46
    Join date : 2012-09-15
    Age : 24

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Marino. on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:54 pm

    You cannot compare Souls to a true competitive Game like Street Fighter and Lol, these Games focus on PVP/Co-op gameplay while Souls focuses on the Single Player Gameplay with some light Multiplayer as a bonus .

    As fun as Souls PVP is, it's not a true clash of skills with it's several broken mechanics .
    If you don't like the rules of a Fight Club just go to one where you like the Rules or just make one yourself .
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:19 pm

    1. Effective strategies make themselves apparent when they beat their competition. I don't think you need statistics to show what needs to be studied / countered. That comes in time.
    It's a rate thing.  There is a time value to exploring the game to its potential faster.  You can see what is effective (and without bias of one's own ability) orders of magnitude more rapidly with accurate statistical tracking.  Granted, not everybody wants that.

    2.You're right, but once again I think this is relatively apparent from general play and does not necessarily *need* statistics.

    I don't think it's good to put decisions on how people play on the subjective interpretations of relatively few people without analytical tools, especially because the developers of games are often not the players who have the most refined abilities.

    While this would be true if those who had an issue with handling the tactic were balanced by those who weren't, I feel as though self regulation is so rampant in DkS that we are gimping ourselves when it comes to handling these tactics, and as such the statistics would reflect that.

    I believe that access to statistics would have a profound, positive impact on self-regulation, in that it would greatly reduce rules made up without basis.

    when the sample size is large enough the results (in my opinion) are irrelevant because people are already well aware of the tactic and it's efficiency and can therefore work to counter it or adopt it.

    IMO this is a dangerous assumption and not necessarily accurate...but perhaps just as importantly an analytical tool would bring these tactics to the fore more rapidly.

    I think you're looking at the statistics as something that would incite knee-jerk reactions, and that certainly does happen among people who are not familiar with the implications.  However, we already have knee-jerk reactions to the point where virtually EVERYTHING is "cheap" right now, depending on who you ask.  If we see only 10 instances of spear flipping in 2000 games we'd know something was up, and even if all 10 won that wouldn't be reliable data obviously, aside to conclude that as a tactic it's very rare.

    Using stats does not equate to making decisions on them without careful interpretation.

    where everyone and their mother comes up with their own arbitrary rule-set and then subsequently uses it to judge the worth/skill-level of other players. The latter is an issue we can handle.

    It's possible to handle it, but not easily.  It would take an organized effort by a reasonable sized group, with a firm commitment to a stated set of principles.  Basically something like:

    1.  This is for duels (IE let's fight 1v1)
    2.  The following is our criteria for bans:
         a)
         b)
         c)
    3.  Use of 3rd party hardware/software to gain an otherwise impossible advantage is illegal.

    a, b, c, or whatever have to be chosen extremely carefully and be rigorously defensible from a logical standpoint.  What happens in practice (if the criteria is well-designed) is that virtually nothing meets a, b, and c all at once, and things that do are usually things like TWoDeath.  However, people see this list and accept the organization as a community (or developer) driven effort to track who is playing well (the entire framework should be about bringing people together to compete and play and organized as such, with the rules only being a small but necessary part of the presentation).

    When something is put together this way, it has an impact on the human psyche.  As more people buy into it, the community as a whole accepts it and eventually it can become common practice.  It's quite late in DS1's cycle to attempt it fruitfully...but that doesn't mean the souls community couldn't potentially benefit from such an organization of players down the road.

    As fun as Souls PVP is, it's not a true clash of skills with it's several broken mechanics .
    If you don't like the rules of a Fight Club just go to one where you like the Rules or just make one yourself .

    As others have pointed out, this is problematically divisive when it comes to community involvement with other players however.  I also don't think it absolutely has to go the way it has to this point.

    Animaaal
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3419
    Reputation : 175
    Join date : 2013-01-17

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Animaaal on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:15 pm

    Question:
    Why does the suggestion of regulation lead to the discussion of "overcoming" a weakness / tactic?  And furthermore, why does it suggest it's the opinion of one person?

    Imo, it insultingly implies that the people who suggest regulation/s don't know the counters, when they might be able to beat you with their eyes closed.




    There are players here who are the pvp elite.  Some of those players have straight out said, "Dark Souls pvp and/or fight clubs would be better if xyz, and here's why."

    Wyrmhero, who is one of the, if the forum expert on strength weapons (RANT also comes to mind) has flat out said strength builds are at a disadvantage, and the optimum soul level to balance the meta would be around 150.

    Rynn, probably the premier xbox pvper in this forum flat out said backstabs are op and should be removed, or at the VERY least changed.

    Several other people have agreed that there are certain aspects of the game that are not balanced.....so how would creating rules for a "common ground" not enhance the experience?

    I refuse to believe that the Dark Souls community is NOT capable of creating an environment expanding the possibilities of balanced builds and a "more fair" dueling format.

    It has nothing to do with who needs to learn how to counter backstabs and dead angles and who don't...

    ....no....

    ...it has to do with creating an environment that says,

    "Okay FROM, this is how we want the next game and this is why.  This is how we regulate our fight clubs, we would like this type of environment to be more apparent without the need for our self regulation.   If you don't change some of the cheap unbalanced bull*** that exists in your game, then...well....I've had enough "Back Stab Souls" to last me a lifetime."

    If anyone says we are too stupid to come up with these kinds of rules, then I say bs.  FROM made some mistakes with the game, we can fix it.  Playing to win has nothing to do with it.

    And actually, if you read the "sneak peaks", you'll see that FROM OBVIOUSLY agrees with this mentality, and from the way it's shaping up, the whole "Play to win" discussion will be no more.  Granted it's too early to  tell, but...well...it looks this way for sure.

    PS-For anyone who says that the TwoP-->Pursuers/whatever combo wouldn't have destroyed about everyone in the Blighttown forum event is just.....that ring is like 4ft x 4ft....Shrug 

    Any event in that arena NEEDS rules.

    PSXYZ-Do we really need the statistics guys???? Come...tha...***...on man. Look Skyward


    Last edited by Animaaal on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:23 pm; edited 5 times in total

    sids__09
    Casual
    Casual

    Posts : 48
    Reputation : 2
    Join date : 2013-07-01

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by sids__09 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:22 pm

    sweet mother of TLDR, what the christ is this

    Animaaal
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3419
    Reputation : 175
    Join date : 2013-01-17

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Animaaal on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:25 pm

    ^A discussion???? Shrug 

    No offense dude, but there is A LOT of great statements in the past few pages. If you TL;DR...well you're missing out.

    Go read, you're missing some GREAT points bro.Point Forward 
    avatar
    TheMeInTeam
    Insomniac
    Insomniac

    Posts : 1010
    Reputation : 42
    Join date : 2012-11-05
    Age : 33
    Location : 1337 Accuracy Way

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by TheMeInTeam on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:25 pm

    There are players here who are the pvp elite.  Some of those players have straight out said, "Dark Souls pvp and/or fight clubs would be better if xyz, and here's why."

    Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and not a valid argumentative construct.

    Several other people have agreed that there are certain aspects of the game that are not balanced.....so how would creating rules for a "common ground" not enhance the experience?

    Possibly several logical fallacies.  I'm not certain if you're appealing to masses here, but if you are then that's one.  Relying on several claims and then making a conclusion that does not follow logically is another.

    And actually, if you read the "sneak peaks", you'll see that FROM OBVIOUSLY agrees with this mentality, and from the way it's shaping up, the whole "Play to win" discussion we be no more.  Granted it's too early to  tell, but...well...it looks this way for sure.

    Let's save speculation on future balance for when the gameplay is delivered.

    You're claiming a need for rules, but are failing to come up with any objective criteria with which to formulate the rules.  This results in opinions alone creating rules, which is exactly the current divisive issue in the community.

    By far the most constructive thing we can focus on is a framework around which sensible rules could be created.

    PSXYZ-Do we really need the statistics guys???? Come...tha...***...on man.

    Pseudo mocking the suggestions of others does not an argument make.

     
    sweet mother of TLDR, what the christ is this

    A forum intended for discussion.  Yes, that occasionally reaches past a few lines happy.

    Animaaal
    Compulsory Poster
    Compulsory Poster

    Posts : 3419
    Reputation : 175
    Join date : 2013-01-17

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Animaaal on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:44 pm

    TheMeInTeam wrote:

    Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and not a valid argumentative construct....

    WRONG. I never said it was MY point of view.  I have my own thank you.  So if I told you your face was blue you wouldn't believe me?
    Ignoring the majority, or at the very least not considering their point/s of view is arrogant and childish and very VERY egotistical.

    TheMeInTeam wrote:

    Possibly several logical fallacies.  I'm not certain if you're appealing to masses here, but if you are then that's one.  Relying on several claims and then making a conclusion that does not follow logically is another....

    Quit telling me what I think.  You're assuming waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.  Try asking questions once and awhile.  I don’t appreciate you trying to tell me I’m a sheep without having the nuts to outright say it.

    TheMeInTeam wrote:...
    Let's save speculation on future balance for when the gameplay is delivered....

    Save what you want.  I have an opinion…so do others…DEAL with it.

    TheMeInTeam wrote:....
    You're claiming a need for rules, but are failing to come up with any objective criteria with which to formulate the rules.  This results in opinions alone creating rules, which is exactly the current divisive issue in the community....

    W...T...F...ever.  Use the search function to see what others have thought.  This is exactly the bull*** response that always ensues.

    GIVE ME PROOOOOF!!!!  Look Skyward

    If you need to ask, then don't.  Just go pvp more, you'll figure it out on your own.  Don't act like its my job to inform you when the past 3 or 4 posts of yours imply you understand.  Backstabs combined with lag = broke...get it?!?!?!

    TheMeInTeam wrote:...
    Pseudo mocking the suggestions of others does not an argument make....

    Follow your own advice.  Mocking the opinion of the prestige players is the EXACT same thing.

    Again, DON’T tell me what I think.  You have no idea, you haven’t even asked nicely, but have assumed everything.

    *Pro-tip...use the enemies list if you're so inclined, if you're not, then cool.<--no assuming.
    avatar
    Emergence
    Sovereign
    Sovereign

    Posts : 4226
    Reputation : 579
    Join date : 2012-01-16
    Age : 103
    Location : Jupiter

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Emergence on Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:53 pm

    Animaal, your last post changed the tone of this thread in a dramatically marked fashion. Please cool down before posting again. Mein's post was engaged debate but still remained concise in tone, and even if you feel they were presumptuous please refrain from animated and demonstrative tones.

    That goes for the entire thread and everyone posting here. This is a hotly debated topic but civility will be maintained.


    _________________
    This Forum is a bonfire.  Thank you all for kindling it.  

    Please help the community by joining both wikis and Fextralife!

    Forum Guidelines / Resource Guides / Dark Souls Wiki / Dark Souls 2 Wiki / Wiki Live Chat

    Fextralife / Wiki Twitch / Emergence Twitch / Wiki Fight Club / The Pantheon
    avatar
    Saturday-Saint
    Caffeinated
    Caffeinated

    Posts : 961
    Reputation : 48
    Join date : 2012-12-09
    Age : 25

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Saturday-Saint on Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:12 pm

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

    EDIT: IMO the opinions of experts is worth far more to balance than statistics.


    _________________
    Joking aside.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Why Regulating Competition is Bad

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:55 am