Are devs overcomplicating the saber system?

[GoodOl'Ben]

There it is again bennyboy! That damned aim on model PB. I think it's an utterly bad idea now, as I did when I first encountered it (years ago?).
People will just aimbot duel. Don't deny the existence of cheats. I know there's a working private wulhek out there some fuckers are using to somehow bypass the poor cheat system LoU recode plz?

The system is actually a fairly decent one as it also avoids any false positives, which to me are worse than having a few rotten apples. I've read the daily reports of how many cheats the system keeps out of the game to know that it's doing its job to a good degree.

Having said all that, cheating should never be the reason to avoid game design decisions.

But that is just a minor reason for me to not like this aim on body mechanic. It's so damn easy and we might aswell remove PB if the mechanic becomes diminished to such an extent

As long as the penalties of not PBing are drastic enough, the mechanic becomes even more prevalent than it is now. My idea would be having one yellow blow draining somewhere around 50% of your BP and failure to successfully block leading to a brief block break which the player can recover from only by perfectblocking any follow-up hit.

Right now perfect block is this small skillcheck that decides the outcome of a drawn-out fight. As the one who fails to pblock will lose 5% while the one who succeeds loses 0. Most of this 5% can regenerate before the next hit lands. This makes the difference very small. It of course leaves a lot less emphasis on a single mistake, which is of course a valid game design choice. However, in my experience this also leads to longer fights.

I'd personally love mistakes to be far more penalized, but with the current pblock mechanic I think it would be a bit too harsh as it is quite a hard mechanic to perform at 99% success capacity. I've seen good players be very reliable at it, with probably around 80% success rates based on my own estimation, but I still tihnk it's too hard in comparison.

Running around and jumping would have more emphasis since these actions make you a harder target to track. This would make the fights feel more high octane too.

If BP regenerated faster and damage dealt was bigger, the fights would be far more back-and-forth between good players. I think it would be easier to spectate a duel without seeing the BP of an opponent if BP carried less importance while a single skillcheck had more weight.

It would be a very different game of course and perhaps for that reason it's not the best direction to take. I'll give you that.

I think what tempest is doing is helping to make the system more accessible to open mode players, whilst simultaneously adding the possibility of distinguishment through skill in a way that is hard to observe in 1.4 builds where there's a sudden and dramatic difference between noobs and those who just grasp the mechanics somewhat. Rather than a clifflike learning curve it would be more gradual and extend further upwards? Atleast thats the way I like to imagine it occuring, whether or not that is how its gonna turn out remains to be seen. But I am hopeful.

Pretty much. I know his goals are correct, but we'll have to see if the solutions solve the problems. I am certain whatever ends up coming out of the current development cycle will be fun and refreshing at least. We'll probably even get closer to a more accessible system. The target audience will still be the hardcore player, which is fine of course.

 

[Tempest]

Right now perfect block is this small skillcheck that decides the outcome of a drawn-out fight. Other stuff too..xyz

IMO, the main issue with PB in its current state is that while it is something that takes a measurable amount of practice/skill to pull off, it can also be done too often by accident and end up simultaneously flip-flopping a duel immediately. Something with that much influence over the outcome of a duel should not ever be happening by accident if it's preventable.

I'd personally love mistakes to be far more penalized, but with the current pblock mechanic I think it would be a bit too harsh as it is quite a hard mechanic to perform at 99% success rate.

I don't think someone should be able to "perfectly" defend at a 99% success rate unless they are just THAT good at defending (which I've probably seen maybe 2 people total that would qualify for that). I am shifting a lot more of the damage given/taken back to being more revolved around punishing mistakes.

If BP regenerated faster and damage dealt was bigger, the fights would be far more back-and-forth between good players. I think it would be easier to spectate a duel without seeing the BP of an opponent if BP carried less importance while a single skillcheck had more weight.

These are also shifts to the saber system that I'm putting in. However, instead of just arbitrarily large damage (as there was in the first open beta), I'm making possible damage overall higher (both in general and in comparison to the first open beta) as you get more momentum in combination with increasing (or actually putting into place) damage-based rewards on timing/mistake punishing. This should bring back the feeling we had in RC1/v0 where experience and skill is what were the main factors into killing someone vs just beating on them and having them die if they miss a PB or two.

Pretty much. I know his goals are correct, but we'll have to see if the solutions solve the problems. I am certain whatever ends up coming out of the current development cycle will be fun and refreshing at least. We'll probably even get closer to a more accessible system. The target audience will still be the hardcore player, which is fine of course.

My target audience isn't the hardcore players (especially since most of them aren't even around anymore) or even any specific set of players in general. I'm just trying to make sabering both intuitive AND have depth with mechanics that can be used as tools without them inadvertently carrying players who are outright outmatched. The case between two saberists should be that whoever is more experienced/skilled should win IF they actually outplay the less experienced one. The less experienced one should also have at least SOME idea of why they lost, whether because they know mechanics (even if they can't utilize them on their own) or because what they saw happen can at least clue them in to what to look at.

Is that too high of an expectation for the system? Probably. Doesn't hurt to keep trying to make it that way though.

 

[Savage (Ranar)]

This poll seriously has gotten everyone's attention now hasn't it? I thank everyone for voting and explaining what they believe in so that Tempest can get more ideas for improving the saber system for the future builds to come.

 

[Ziggy]

I've read this through and was real apprehensive about replying because it's obvious a lot of the people replying have a wealth of experience in this game and seem to have some valid arguments. But I noticed Tempest's reasoning why many of the changes were being made and I'd like to share my experience as a new player. I had some experience dueling in jka so I have a rough understanding of the swing mechanics and after watching many of SeV's instructional videos I had a very basic understanding of what was going on. I joined an open server and in most toe to toe saber fights I had a lot of trouble holding my own but what I enjoyed was when I started losing I understood why. Each fight I took a little something from it. By the end of my time on the server I had managed to come out on top a few times, albeit it was usually because a gross error on someone else's part, or that they got distracted by something else going on in the round. What I liked was it was relatively easy for me to see what I was doing wrong. I started to understand the perfect block system, not getting hit while I am swinging, parrying, and the tempo and rhythms a lot of people get into. Was I able to capitalize on it most of the time? No. But as I gain experience I'm sure I can learn. I'm not familiar with the way sabering used to be in this mod, so I can't really say if it's better or worse. But what I can say is I enjoy it, and it's intuitive enough I can see myself learning it. I've really been enjoying the mod. Much thanks to those putting in the work to make it.

 

[AaronAaron]

I've read this through and was real apprehensive about replying because it's obvious a lot of the people replying have a wealth of experience in this game and seem to have some valid arguments. But I noticed Tempest's reasoning why many of the changes were being made and I'd like to share my experience as a new player. I had some experience dueling in base so I have a rough understanding of the swing mechanics and after watching many of SeV's instructional videos I had a very basic understanding of what was going on. I joined an open server and in most toe to toe saber fights I had a lot of trouble holding my own but what I enjoyed was when I started losing I understood why. Each fight I took a little something from it. By the end of my time on the server I had managed to come out on top a few times, albeit it was usually because a gross error on someone else's part, or that they got distracted by something else going on in the round. What I liked was it was relatively easy for me to see what I was doing wrong. I started to understand the perfect block system, not getting hit while I am swinging, parrying, and the tempo and rhythms a lot of people get into. Was I able to capitalize on it most of the time? No. But as I gain experience I'm sure I can learn. I'm not familiar with the way sabering used to be in this mod, so I can't really say if it's better or worse. But what I can say is I enjoy it, and it's intuitive enough I can see myself learning it. I've really been enjoying the mod. Much thanks to those putting in the work to make it.

Man, as much as I hated being new to this game, I sure wish I could go back and learn it all again. It really is fun seeing yourself progress.

 

[Jiube]

Gave my vote to "yes", mostly because I always preferred principally simple ideas, systems, and mechanics, the kind that by their nature differentiate skilled and unskilled players enough not to need additional complex mechanical neuances and "special cases" to be effective and make interesting gameplay.

Genius lies in simplicity.

You often see that in some of the best games. Take Quake 3 Arena, for example. It somewhat depends on how you think about it, but let me offer one possible approach. The most core system of this game is shooting, obviously. There are just a few mechanics that affect and complement it: aiming, weapon differences, map design (the very fact there are corners, elevations, etc), movement speed. And when you think about it, there is already enough here to differentiate a good player from a bad player, just from the way direct interaction of players is done.

But Quake game designers go slightly further. They place resources on the map, different powerups, and they design maps in such a way to create potential struggle points around the resources. What mechanics make this resource control system work? Map design, movement speed, resource differences (their impact and respawn times). Just those few are enough to add this whole second layer to the game, up to the point when for players of relatively equal mechanical skill the game suddently becomes mostly about map control, and even if mechanical skill differs good map control can help the less skilled mechanically, but smarter player win.

One more interesting thing I would like to point out is the fact most of those mechanics affect both core systems at the same time: movement speed and map design affect both aiming and map control; wepons can be thought of as a kind of resource from the point of view of a map control system, you need them for encounters, you get them though map control. There are not that many separate mechanics, just a few very good ones, which are reused to enchance both systems. Also, both of these systems synergize very well. Getting resources on the map gives you that edge in the actual encounter. On the other hand, you can pick good encounters to get and contest those resources, or zone your opponent from those resources (which is something professional Quake players often seek to do when they are playing from behind on a map). And in the end we see relatively simple and straightforward mechanics add up to surprizingly deep and complex gameplay, and both skill floor and skill ceiling for both of these "simple" straightforward systems are far enough apart there is literally no need to add anything on top. This is why Quake Live is still a thing, and there are still Quake tournaments up to this day, despite the age of the game. Most of this is caused by simple concepts synergizing well.

All of this does not mean making mechanics complex and heavily neuanced is bad. Complex mechanics in large quantities are often used, for example, in strategy or MOBA games, and it can definitely work too (especially for games with the kind of dynamics strategies and MOBAs have). But it is necessary to realize we are still dealing with a single system, where every part affects pretty much every other part of the whole. If there are not so many parts it is relatively easy to make adjustments and predict consequences. But once you pile mechanics on top of mechanics too much... They all still affect each other, and if there are many it is much harder to even guess the consequences of any adjustments, let alone find an elegant solution that still achieves the needed goal.

Not that I'm too experienced with the current dueling system of MB2, but from what I can see there are many mechanics that don't really synergize much, more like serve as means to "add complexity and differentiate skill", or to "plug a hole" that was recently discovered in the way other mechanics work. Although, due to the lack of direct and recent experience with the system my guess might be incorrect.

What I'm coming to start somewhat leaning to during the last couple of patches is... Dare I say it, scratch the whole current dueling system. It is a mad idea, but hear me out! We had relatively good examples of pretty well working dueling systems during a few patches: RC1, RC3, v1.3. Perhaps, it may be worth it to pinpoint what was good about them, set these as requirements for the new goal of the new sabering system, and then build a new dueling systems using only the mechanics that synergize with each other well and complement that final goal (albeit making allowance for the "heritage" mechanics from BaseJKA that would not really be feasible to remove even if was attampted). I'm not sure if this is even a feasible approach, even evaluating the amount of work that would need to be done is difficult at this point (at least because we don't have any real requirements, not even an estimation). But the more topics on dueling systems and its problems I see on forums, the more I wonder...

 

[Tempest]

I think you summed things up pretty well @Jiube .

but from what I can see there are many mechanics that don't really synergize much, more like serve as means to "add complexity and differentiate skill", or to "plug a hole" that was recently discovered in the way other mechanics work. Although, due to the lack of direct and recent experience with the system my guess might be incorrect.

Your guess is definitely not incorrect or far off by any means. I'll clarify by adding that on top of what you said, the current mechanics are not very evenly balanced as far as effort required/skill involved/reward for execution. There's a couple that are extremely strong that are basically only present to either offset another obscenely strong/obnoxious mechanic or just for the sake of being there (essentially what you described).

As for what you said about scrapping the current build and taking the good things from the solid/stable ones from the past, that's essentially what I'm doing (albeit not quite scrapping the current system entirely). Each of the good/memorable builds had their golden qualities but also had glaring issues. I'm trying to incorporate the best of those builds while addressing/eliminating the parts that made them broken/inconsistent.

In a nutshell, you could say I'm basically frankensteining a hybrid RC1/V0 + current stuff without the features/mechanics (or at least in the form that they get frowned upon) that turned them downhill.

 

[SK5]

Just bring back tapping please. It was the extremely rewarding for learning it and currently attacking just drains you as much as the enemy. It feels counterproductive imo.

 

[SeV]

Just bring back tapping please. It was the extremely rewarding for learning it and currently attacking just drains you as much as the enemy. It feels counterproductive imo.

Yeees. I've been saying that to tempest on steam. And more

 

[DaloLorn]

Just bring back tapping please. It was the extremely rewarding for learning it and currently attacking just drains you as much as the enemy. It feels counterproductive imo.

Yes, let's punish people for not being able to hold the attack button for precisely X nanoseconds, because that was such a brilliant idea before.

Of all the things that have changed recently, that is one thing I fully, unquestionably agree with.

 

[AaronAaron]

Yes, let's punish people for not being able to hold the attack button for precisely X nanoseconds, because that was such a brilliant idea before.

Of all the things that have changed recently, that is one thing I fully, unquestionably agree with.

Yeah but back then it took time to learn how to combo without wasting a lot of BP. Now you just have to hold attack and swing in different directions. Its boring, and it ruined 1.4.3

 

[hleV]

Tapping is gone? Rofl wtf are you doing with this game

 

[DaloLorn]

Yeah but back then it took time to learn how to combo without wasting a lot of BP. Now you just have to hold attack and swing in different directions. Its boring, and it ruined 1.4.3

There are several reasons why I prefer a defensive stance like the one I used before 1.4.3:

1. The way swingblocking works means that there's a good chance I won't turn it on fast enough, even if I intend to. Wait, where did my saber go again? Why am I on the floor again? Why the hell did I get flinched? (I rest my case.)

2. The way combos worked meant that I could reasonably expect to bleed myself more than my opponent - not because he knew how to counter my attacks and/or push me onto the defensive, not even because he could mblock me before I managed to swingblock my swing (or, yes, before I realized I should swingblock that particular swing...), but because the game decided "oh, you held it for 2 nanoseconds longer than necessary, you lose another 2 BP".

Let's also take a look back at what the developers said when the latter was finally solved:

Currently, the amount of BP you spend is based on whether you're activating attack per frame that's run by the server. This is unintuitive to say the least. (emphasis added)

 

[SeV]

There are several reasons why I prefer a defensive stance like the one I used before 1.4.3:

1. The way swingblocking works means that there's a good chance I won't turn it on fast enough, even if I intend to. Wait, where did my saber go again? Why am I on the floor again? Why the hell did I get flinched? (I rest my case.)

2. The way combos worked meant that I could reasonably expect to bleed myself more than my opponent - not because he knew how to counter my attacks and/or push me onto the defensive, not even because he could mblock me before I managed to swingblock my swing (or, yes, before I realized I should swingblock that particular swing...), but because the game decided "oh, you held it for 2 nanoseconds longer than necessary, you lose another 2 BP".

Let's also take a look back at what the developers said when the latter was finally solved:

Number 1 is a learn to play/ping/input lag issue. Either you don't physically swingblock in time, the server doesn't react due to ping/fps or input lag. It's not a fault of the system in most cases.

Number 2 is the reason why 1.4.4 swing drains are such utter garbage. You're literally draining your own bp to within 1 or 2 PB+counters of your opponent if he is completely passive and not PBing and you are smashing him with combos continuously. This is simply a ridiculous dynamic where you discourage people from attacking someone else because they are basically raping themselves in the process. First of all tapping was a skill element of the game but imperfectly implemented. I don't think there are many, if any, vets (I mean duelists, not Goodolben ^_^), who after playing 1.4.4 will think that the swing drain system is superior to the old tapping system. Sure the old tapping system was flawed, but it was still superior. A return to tapping will be better, but what would be even more desirable would be an improved tapping system that is style dependant. That way you get the benefits of a swing drain system + skill requirement for tapping.

It goes without saying that it should then be much more sustainable than the current swingdrain garbage. The issue is that the game punishes you through BP drain for performing an action needed to win the fucking duel and makes it enormously risky to try and finish someone off if both are below half BP. I don't really like the way 1.4.3 parry drains felt either, but to me that was atleast a thing that occured when both ppl were attacking each other. You weren't just draining your own BP on your own, smashing your head against a wall.

So for me it's two fold. The first thing is that the high swing drains ruins the sustainability of aggressive playstyles, hampering gameplay and limiting players. Making them feel gimped. The second thing is removing (yet another) aspect of skill that (used to) differentiate good duelists from average ones.

Turning the game into the equivalent of a call of duty ez mode shitfest is absolutely not the way to go about it, so most (if not all) of the things that require actual skill, should be emphasized and rewarded, while things that do not require skill should be de-emphasized and/or simply not rewarded (or even punished).

 

[DaloLorn]

Number 1 is a learn to play/ping/input lag issue. Either you don't physically swingblock in time, the server doesn't react due to ping/fps or input lag. It's not a fault of the system in most cases.

It takes a fraction of a second at the very least for you to start swingblocking. It also takes a fraction of a second for someone to exploit any gap in your swingblock - be it accidentally disengaging block (for instance, if your mouse is shit and can't reliably hold a button. I get that with my attack button right now, I should get a new one soon.) or just not managing to turn it on before they act - by slapping you to the floor, flinching you, or if you're really down on your luck, mblocking you.

I've been noticing a trend lately of nerfing and penalizing non-swingblocks - I understand that this is because new players' lack of experience will cause them to default to such swings, but swingblocks are a lot more than a "choice" even in a "non-penalizing environment" (I use quotes there because as my next sentence explains, the current environment is anything but non-penalizing). They are A: a requirement (try dueling anyone who extensively uses mblocks/slaps, or often times his swings to interrupt you - see how well you fare without swingblocking) and B: not something that can be performed reliably and with ease by anyone who knows about it. (Case in point, while I'm getting flinched a lot less these days, I still can't swingblock reliably enough that I'll often get slapped, on a ping of 40-60.)

You're literally draining your own bp to within 1 or 2 PB+counters of your opponent if he is completely passive and not PBing and you are smashing him with combos continuously.

See, I don't experience that at all in 1.4.4. It didn't always happen even in 1.4.3 and earlier builds, because when I went on the offensive I could somewhat mitigate the issue anyway - but it happened a lot more frequently back then. (Also, given the description of how tapping worked serverside, it's conceivable that, if you were good enough, you were previously losing somewhere in the realm of 0-2 BP, "smashing him with combos" with utter impunity. As I recall, there's a name for that in the dueling community - it's called "spam", and it's something that people, including yourself, have been trying to limit.)

People should know, without having to guess their skill level, how much BP their attack will cost them. I won't lie, I'm a little upset about non-swingblocks costing 2-3 BP more than swingblocks in 1.4.5 (because of the swingblocking issue I mentioned) - but at least I can anticipate that added cost and know exactly how much I'm losing. I can plan for it, I can tailor my tactics to it, and I can still have a fighting chance.

 

[SeV]

See, I don't experience that at all in 1.4.4. It didn't always happen even in 1.4.3 and earlier builds, because when I went on the offensive I could somewhat mitigate the issue anyway - but it happened a lot more frequently back then. (Also, given the description of how tapping worked serverside, it's conceivable that, if you were good enough, you were previously losing somewhere in the realm of 0-2 BP, "smashing him with combos" with utter impunity. As I recall, there's a name for that in the dueling community - it's called "spam", and it's something that people, including yourself, have been trying to limit.)

People should know, without having to guess their skill level, how much BP their attack will cost them. I won't lie, I'm a little upset about non-swingblocks costing 2-3 BP more than swingblocks in 1.4.5 (because of the swingblocking issue I mentioned) - but at least I can anticipate that added cost and know exactly how much I'm losing. I can plan for it, I can tailor my tactics to it, and I can still have a fighting chance.

Okay so one huge misconception that people always seem to get confused about is the difference between effortless spam that requires little to no skill, and masterfully weaving a carpet of attacks unto your opponent, with timing and traps and so on to fall into. To me the main thing has always been to make irrelevant or insignificant things that do not require skill to execute, while emphasizing and encouraging things that require skill by buffing them. This has always been my approach to spam. I've never been in favour of nerfing spam, but nerfing skill-less spam. There is a huge difference. I personally think that spam is not a bad thing in and of itself. Why should it be? It's spam that requires little to no effort and skill that's bad. That is one of the reasons why I have been pushing for swingblock to deal more dmg than non-swingblocks, drain less BP than non-swingblocks and so on. Because it takes like no skill to hold m1 and adad. There is a huge difference mechanically for someone like me, stassin, agent, sekundus (and others) + exodus, aaron (and other good newfag duelists), in tapping vs holding mouse 1. This difference is further exacerbated with swingblocking correctly to maximize your defensive capabilities. Another issue why you might feel you're getting slapped alot is to do with timing and predictability. Swingblocking can never be a full safeguard against slaps, because slaps can be timed to happen right when an opponent starts a 2nd swing in a combo etc. Slap prevention should (in addition to swingblock) be in the way you attack and read ur opponent and all that, but that's getting sidetracked a little bit.

The main issue with the high swing drains is two fold. They prevent both skillful spam and skill-less spam by just raising the drains across the board insensitively and indiscriminately. This is a stupid and frankly not very delicate approach to take, and has yielded bad results because of it. What it has done is basically take away the possibility of good, skilled (so-called) spam and at the same time removed the ability to differentiate between mechanically superior players on the basis of tapping vs holding m1, all under the guise of combatting skill-less spam. I argue that this is the wrong way to go about things. That the removal of mechanics that require skill and function well, is not the way to go about preventing something undesirable. For example, let's say (hypothetically) that someone can PB 90% of the swings aimed at him, but most others can only PB 30%. Should we nerf PB on the basis that most people are unable to perform them consistently? No, absolutely not. That is tantamount to reducing the depth and skill-level of the game and has a huge impact not just on the top player, but also on those plebs who can only PB 30 or 20 or 10%. It trivializes effort to improve and removes meaningful skill progression. Without a goal to aim at everything becomes a homogenized mess where everyone plays the same way and there isn't anything to differentiate between someone good and someone mediocre. The above extreme scenario is an example of why I have been pushing for a raised skill ceiling, for mechanics that require skill to yield proper rewards, and why I have been consistently suggesting that devs do NOT reward brainless actions that do not require skill. In some cases this is more delicate, and we have to compare the skill required to execute mechanics vs their effectiveness aswell. For example the 1.3 cyan parry style. It is objectively piss easy to spam parries, vs hitting aimed PBs, yet if you gain the same benefits as you do from PBing, for a much less skill intense action such as parrying with insta swings, then that means there is a disparity. This results in people with less skill being able to go toe to toe with someone with far greater skill due to certain mechanics having a disparity between skill required and effect achieved. I have been saying, and attempting to push, the game in the direction where all actions have outcomes that are balanced with the skill required to perform said actions. Hitting a PB+Mblock+Counter obviously requires more effort than hitting a PB+Counter. And if it were possible, bodyhit+counter would then require even less skill. These three hypothetical actions should not have teh same outcome in the form of reward, should they?

To me, the swingblock vs non-swingblock thing, and the tap vs flat drains thing, is this kind of situation.

 

[DaloLorn]

Conscious decision != successful execution (for lack of a better term).

I can decide that I want to swingblock all of my swings. Why not, the game is built to reward me. With your system in place, I can also decide that I want to tap the mouse for only one nanosecond, no more, no less.

It is physically impossible for me to do the latter (partly because of my hyperbolic values, but partly because the real values still demand a great deal of precision), and the former is questionable at best.

I can also decide that I want to PB everything my opponent throws at me. Make no mistake, I can't do this either, though I used to come sufficiently close in 1.4.2 and 1.4.5 to hold my own against most people. But, I can come a lot closer to PBing everything than I can to swingblocking everything or tapping the mouse for a nanosecond, by improving my awareness of what the enemy is doing or by manipulating my position relative to him. In that one mechanic, I can know exactly what I'm working with, and know it with a much greater degree of precision than I can know whether I'm going to swingblock/tap fast enough to win. Make an educated guess as to how the battle is going and whether I should push back or start withdrawing.

From what I can tell, your definition of 'skill' relies heavily on perfecting your reflexes, throwing out dozens of responses at the same time with only limited conscious thought about what is going on beyond "Am I doing this right? Am I swingblocking/tapping/whatevering fast enough, and is it the right counter to whatever action the opponent is currently doing?". You also seem to greatly favor skill 'doors' instead of a steady curve (forget where the ceiling is, but how do you reach it?), like how mblocks will singlehandedly allow a player to defeat most non-mblocking duelists by limiting their options without being limited himself.

Mine relies more on analysis and observation, on reading the enemy's tactics and formulating a plan that is either blatantly unstoppable or simply impossible to read in time to counteract. Mechanics should be easy to learn but hard to master, like PBs, deflect or flinch (or flinch avoidance, I suppose ) - they shouldn't be hard to learn but easy (relatively speaking, at least...) to master, like mblocks or speed lunges.

 

[SeV]

Conscious decision != successful execution (for lack of a better term).

I can decide that I want to swingblock all of my swings. Why not, the game is built to reward me. With your system in place, I can also decide that I want to tap the mouse for only one nanosecond, no more, no less.

It is physically impossible for me to do the latter (partly because of my hyperbolic values, but partly because the real values still demand a great deal of precision), and the former is questionable at best.

I can also decide that I want to PB everything my opponent throws at me. Make no mistake, I can't do this either, though I used to come sufficiently close in 1.4.2 and 1.4.5 to hold my own against most people. But, I can come a lot closer to PBing everything than I can to swingblocking everything or tapping the mouse for a nanosecond, by improving my awareness of what the enemy is doing or by manipulating my position relative to him. In that one mechanic, I can know exactly what I'm working with, and know it with a much greater degree of precision than I can know whether I'm going to swingblock/tap fast enough to win. Make an educated guess as to how the battle is going and whether I should push back or start withdrawing.

From what I can tell, your definition of 'skill' relies heavily on perfecting your reflexes, throwing out dozens of responses at the same time with only limited conscious thought about what is going on beyond "Am I doing this right? Am I swingblocking/tapping/whatevering fast enough, and is it the right counter to whatever action the opponent is currently doing?". You also seem to greatly favor skill 'doors' instead of a steady curve (forget where the ceiling is, but how do you reach it?), like how mblocks will singlehandedly allow a player to defeat most non-mblocking duelists by limiting their options without being limited himself.

Mine relies more on analysis and observation, on reading the enemy's tactics and formulating a plan that is either blatantly unstoppable or simply impossible to read in time to counteract. Mechanics should be easy to learn but hard to master, like PBs, deflect or flinch (or flinch avoidance, I suppose ) - they shouldn't be hard to learn but easy (relatively speaking, at least...) to master, like mblocks or speed lunges.

I can totally understand the desire to be able to out-think your mechanically superior opponent and come out on top because you read his patterns and formulated a strategy to exploit that. I think that is one of the things that has been lacking in recent builds. Out strategizing, out thinking, tricking, faking your opponent, was something I used very often pre aimed PB. After the introduction of aimed PB, it became less dominant because there was a different layer added. It was a case of unreliable PB becoming reliable. I don't think you should conflate two different types of skill and say I can only perceive one or the other. I am saying that there is no need to trivialize mechanical skill because of an inability to perform it up to standards. Furthermore, MBII sabering has never been a game that lends itself to slowly thinking about your approach. It is a fast game that requires split second decisions and reflex actions. One of the reasons why good players are good, is because they have trained themselves to respond appropriately to a situation in a split second, whereas others will maybe know how to act correctly, but simply be unable to perform the action. It's a matter of training, just like physical athletes training an action repeatedly, so too does certain MBII mechanics lend themselves to this type of training and gradual improvement.

Also, I do not see what you 'deciding' to do anything, and being unable to do so, has to do with the discussion. We should deal in reality, not wishful thinking. Of course, I want to win every duel flawlessly, but deciding to do so is just delusional wishful thinking on my part, were I to engage in such thinking. As I said before, MBII is not a game where you can pause for 30 seconds and think "What should I do now?" If you want that kind of gameplay you should go play chess, baduk or Shogi. Or an RPG. You know? I am not saying that tactics, strategizing, faking and out-thinking your opponent should not be present. On the contrary I am all for such things existing. But this is also a game of skill. Simply sitting down, folding your arms and deciding to think yourself to victory by virtue of thinking the correct responses, is not MBII. In any game, there are elements of mechanical skill and elements of conscious thought and strategy. In counter-strike you can decide to go A or B, smoke mid, rush, run a fake strat etc. In MBII dueling, you can fake low BP, play defensive/offensive, use footwork, dodge, decide to store up ACM etc. But the recent builds (post aimed PB mostly) have leaned alot towards mechanical stuff and some of the strategy and stuff has been stripped away. Then when you wish to strip away something requiring mechanical skill, I say no. It's like saying in Counterstrike, I can't get a Headshot 100% of the time, so there should be auto-aim like in other crap FPS games. (Like seriously? Auto aim in FPS games wtf?) We can all see how such a decision turned out for the game can't we? What if auto-aim was suddenly introduced to counter-'strike and people just had to use strategy only? Would that make it a better game or worse?

Why not have both mechanical skill aswell as elements of strategy and tactics? This is what should be aimed at. Stripping away mechanical skill in a game such as MBII is like stripping away depth.

Lastly, I'm not sure I like how you generate arbitrary statements, attribute them to me as my opinion, then proceed to answer that as if I were the one who said it. For example about the skill ceiling thing. Never at any point did I say I didn't prefer a nice smooth gradual learning curve. In fact I wasn't discussing learning curves at all, merely saying that the skill ceiling should be high. Oh so high, so lofty. So that we might have something to aim for continously. I think one of the reasons why MBII is lasting so long for people, is/was the appeal that it is so deep that there's always something to learn and improve in your game. My argument is simply that tapping was a skill ceiling addition that helped differentiate skilled players from non-skilled players. I used to be able to tell at a glance if someone knew what he was doing or not, and quite often could tell who the player was because of his style even if he was using -Padawan-. Now it is much harder to do this, because most people play the same way, use the same combos and attacks and so on, and just have a generic, flavourless playing style. Anyway that is beside the point.

Final thing. Hard to learn easy to master = Mblock? No. I can't speak to how easy or hard it is to learn, because I have been playing this shit for so long and played Base JKA, JO and dark forces since I was a little kid. But I do know that mastering Mblock is not easy. There's alot of depth involved in choosing to mblock on correct timings, predicting the opponents combos to mblock 2nd or 3rd swing and so on. Not to mention the mechanical skill required to PB. Learning simply means grasping the concept of something, not mastering it mechanically or theoretically. So in my view Mblock is not that hard to 'learn', ie understand how to do it. It's in the execution part where it is hard. In other words, the concept of how to perform an Mblock is easy to grasp compared with the mechanical execution and application of the skill (aka using it aka moving towards mastering it). And speed lunge? Neglible and easy to learn also. How can you consider it hard to learn? But again I may be suffering from reverse donning kruger, in that I may have difficulties perceiving how someone unskilled thinks and plays the game, so I usually refrain from commenting on such things lest I offend some people by saying a mechanic is easy to learn hard to master while I see them strugglin with it. Still, mblock is not easy to master, lul.

 

[DaloLorn]

Yay, I just realized I can select chunks of posts and quote them...

Also, I do not see what you 'deciding' to do anything, and being unable to do so, has to do with the discussion

Basically, if I consciously focus a lot on things like PBing, I'll do them a lot better. (Possibly at the expense of everything else. Ever since I started toying with mblocks, my PBing has gone down the drain along with my survivability.) Focusing on things like swingblocking? Not so much.

But the recent builds (post aimed PB mostly) have leaned alot towards mechanical stuff and some of the strategy and stuff has been stripped away. Then when you wish to strip away something requiring mechanical skill, I say no.

After reading parts like this one, I'm beginning to think that perhaps we should be on the same side, trying to bring back the tactical side of 'skill'?

It's like saying in Counterstrike, I can't get a Headshot 100% of the time, so there should be auto-aim like in other crap FPS games. (Like seriously? Auto aim in FPS games wtf?)

... There are games that do that?!

Lastly, I'm not sure I like how you generate arbitrary statements, attribute them to me as my opinion, then proceed to answer that as if I were the one who said it. For example about the skill ceiling thing.

I perceive things like mblock as things that drastically break the smoothness of the skill curve (and at a point that I would consider to be well beyond "first-time n00b" territory, where a sudden jump from useless to useful is probably to be expected), and you seemed to focus a lot on those in your last post, so... yeah. That one's on me.

Learning simply means grasping the concept of something, not mastering it mechanically or theoretically. So in my view Mblock is not that hard to 'learn', ie understand how to do it.

I mostly used that phrase a little differently, with "learning" meaning "managing to do it occasionally with questionable practical results" and "mastering" being "refining your use of it to the point where you can often pull it off to maximum effect".

Under your interpretation, I have learned both speed lunge and mblock months ago - but I've only started getting any results from the latter a short while ago, and I was slightly relaxing "hard" when I included lunge - I needed another example of an ability that's hard to fight with (for all the times when I'm grateful for using speed 3, there are many when it outright fails to hurt anyone despite slamming into the target and presumably getting the saber timing right), and it occurs to me that saber throw slipped my mind.

Under my interpretation, on the other hand, I'm not sure I've fully learned mblock, I may have learned speed lunge - just barely - and I am only beginning to learn saber throw. (WHY WILL YOU NOT HIT THIS GUY. )

 

[SeV]

I mostly used that phrase a little differently, with "learning" meaning "managing to do it occasionally with questionable practical results" and "mastering" being "refining your use of it to the point where you can often pull it off to maximum effect".

Under your interpretation, I have learned both speed lunge and mblock months ago - but I've only started getting any results from the latter a short while ago, and I was slightly relaxing "hard" when I included lunge - I needed another example of an ability that's hard to fight with (for all the times when I'm grateful for using speed 3, there are many when it outright fails to hurt anyone despite slamming into the target and presumably getting the saber timing right), and it occurs to me that saber throw slipped my mind.

Under my interpretation, on the other hand, I'm not sure I've fully learned mblock, I may have learned speed lunge - just barely - and I am only beginning to learn saber throw. (WHY WILL YOU NOT HIT THIS GUY. )

To me this is really weird, because you seem to conceive of learning as gaining like 40-50% mastery over a skill, and leaving the rest (mastery) to the upper 20%
I see learning a concept like Mblock in MBII, as understanding what it does, how to do it and so on. so that you can in theory perform the action. Learning PB, differs from learning to PB, in that one means to obtain sufficient knowledge of the thing, while the other implies training to some degree of master in the skill. I don't think you can even begin to train in the skill, if you do not understand it, so I find your divvying up of learning and mastery to be kind of strange. You see, the way you think about it implies that even though you understand everything conceptually but then fail at the action means you have not yet learned the skill. I argue that what you're actually talking about now is mastery of a learned skill, not learning the skill itself. To me it's simple. First you obtain knowledge of how to perform the skill. Then having learned the skill, you proceed to increase your mastery in the skill by training it. For PB, for example, you would have learned PB when you know where to aim. But you would still be far from mastering it. In your definition of the term you would have learned PB if you were able to occasionally pull it off. Yet I think that a day 1 noob who is shown the PB zones and pracitces hitting a few PBs, has learned the skill. Now he needs to walk the long road towards mastery of the skill, and mastering the skill I suppose fits well with your definition of mastery. With regards to Mblock, I think that when someone has learned the directions and managed to pull of a succesful Mblock, he has learned to Mblock. In the case of mblock this little semantic seems to make a big difference with regards to the whole easy to learn hard to master mantra.