PDA

View Full Version : Why is there no competitive PVE - or - Why there is no competitive PVE



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Shadowelf
07-10-2013, 02:12 PM
Luckily we don't have to worry about that, Cory already told completionists that you won't be able to get everything. That's a fact about the game already, so we don't need to worry about systems that enable people to get everything. Play what you can play, watch youtube or twitch videos of things you miss. Move on to the new stuff.

Hate to admit it, since i'm a collector at heart, but Cory's reply and the Gencon limited swag bags incident, made me realise the same and grounded somewhat my desire for having everything in pve. I will try to have everything pvp and what the game allows me in pve despite the fact that this displeases my collective nature.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 02:13 PM
I've been talking on a cellphone all day. If you gave a reason that because of supply, or more fully explained your side on this issue, which I'd like you to understand you're the one attempting to alter the way all tcg's function, not me and the burden of proof fully lies on you. I have not seen it. Please direct me to a post number and I'll rebut it directly.

I can only assume that I missed your argument due to your infuriating habit of editing your previous posts after I have already replied.

Unhurtable
07-10-2013, 02:15 PM
That's exactly my point. This argument boils down to people waiting infinite access to things that shouldn't have infinite access. It's not about story. It's not about experiencing the past. It's about a way to get cards

Why shouldn't dungeon / raid content have infinite access?

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 02:20 PM
Dungeon deletion (as opposed to retirement to a playable time vault) should not be necessary. The supply of a particular dungeon's rewards will automatically decrease as the dungeon falls out of favor with the players for whatever reason. If supply dips far enough, then players will have renewed incentive to go back to the old content. This seems like a good thing.
Sorry, was this the argument I'm supposed to be rebutting? I don't feel it's valid, if this were the case why doesn't magic go back and reprint packs of older sets, people would still buy them trying to get a lotus, even if the lotus is unplayable in their tournament block. The answer is many fold and well explored, I suggest google to go into the why's and hows of the TCG supply and demand setup


Why shouldn't dungeon / raid content have infinite access?
Simply, to create the appearance of value, so that people will pay for digital items, the only thing that gives them value is the demand vs the supply. Even if demand decreases (which it will as there are more and more options) if supply is 0 value will always be maintained.

Also, from a pve standpoint, a huge complaint with wow was always the earlier zones were static in time, it was like time traveling, you go to the barens and wailing caverns and everything was exactly the same. After cata, now you level up to where it is time to go to burning crusade outlands zones in the present, you pass through the dark portal, and you're suddenly 3 years ago in the story, it doesn't make any sense. Dungeons leaving the game, and things being removed in their original forms to be updated and replaced by new fresh up to date in the timeline of the story content is ideal. This always staying the same is an artifact from MMORPG's that we can now move past.

Gorgol
07-10-2013, 02:52 PM
I'm glad for this knowledge now at least, so that I can make sure every day I will have time to play so that I don't miss out on anything.

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 02:55 PM
Sorry, was this the argument I'm supposed to be rebutting? I don't feel it's valid, if this were the case why doesn't magic go back and reprint packs of older sets, people would still buy them trying to get a lotus, even if the lotus is unplayable in their tournament block. The answer is many fold and well explored, I suggest google to go into the why's and hows of the TCG supply and demand setup


Simply, to create the appearance of value, so that people will pay for digital items, the only thing that gives them value is the demand vs the supply. Even if demand decreases (which it will as there are more and more options) if supply is 0 value will always be maintained.

Also, from a pve standpoint, a huge complaint with wow was always the earlier zones were static in time, it was like time traveling, you go to the barens and wailing caverns and everything was exactly the same. After cata, now you level up to where it is time to go to burning crusade outlands zones in the present, you pass through the dark portal, and you're suddenly 3 years ago in the story, it doesn't make any sense. Dungeons leaving the game, and things being removed in their original forms to be updated and replaced by new fresh up to date in the timeline of the story content is ideal. This always staying the same is an artifact from MMORPG's that we can now move past.

Have you ever sat in trade in WoW? Things with infinite supply are constantly reserved for gold and is mentioned when they advertise for more players to join - the amount of gold is sometimes quite high, and the drop is far from guaranteed. Digital items have a value dependant on how rare they are - you do not need to give an illusion of rarity if they are simply rare in the first place.

And you are looking at this the wrong way - the PvE side is MMO first, TCG second in terms of economy. The PvP side is different - it is TCG first. So PvE is perfectly able to function under a sompletely different set of rules. And it is proven time after time in many MMO's - things in PvE often have far more worth than anything in PvP.

Shadowelf
07-10-2013, 03:02 PM
And you are looking at this the wrong way - the PvE side is MMO first, TCG second in terms of economy. The PvP side is different - it is TcG first. So PvE is perfectly able to function under a sompletely different set of rules. And it is proven time after time in many MMO's - things in PvE often have far more worth than anything in PvP.

Very valid point; i think that hex though is a special case. Most mmos i've played gave emphasis to pve (wow, lineage) and had pvp as a sweetener; in hex however i feel that the roles are reversed and pvp will be the 'main plate'

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 03:08 PM
It's MMO first maybe. But not mmorpg. FarmVille is also an MMO.

Why does my phone capitalize FarmVille like that. =\

Xenavire
07-10-2013, 03:28 PM
It's MMO first maybe. But not mmorpg. FarmVille is also an MMO.

Why does my phone capitalize FarmVille like that. =\

The MMO side does have distinct RPG qualities though, like earning rewards for completing dungeons, character progression, etc etc. I know for a fact that items that are only earned through time and effort and RNG will have value - more than enough value to prevent it from becoming problem. MMO's have proven that time and again - look how long it can take to earn a piece of gear that makes all of 1% of difference to your damage/healing etc - yet people value that upgrade and if they can shortcut by buying it on the auction house, they will - sometimes at insane prices.

And even things that are purely cosmetic will have value as long as they are rare enough. Look at Transmogrifcation in wow - some of the most inane items are worth incredible amounts just because they are dropped in the open world, or at a super low percentage in a dungeon.

There will never be a need to artificially increase the value of PvE cards - and if you worry about commons, look at green and blue items in WoW - they are quickly disenchanted to fuel enchantments (even purple items are for that matter - quite often when the content is old it is farmed and everything is disenchanted.) The crafting system will probably mirror this perfectly, giving enough value to the end result to make destroying cards worth it.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 03:51 PM
Sorry, was this the argument I'm supposed to be rebutting? I don't feel it's valid, if this were the case why doesn't magic go back and reprint packs of older sets, people would still buy them trying to get a lotus, even if the lotus is unplayable in their tournament block. The answer is many fold and well explored, I suggest google to go into the why's and hows of the TCG supply and demand setup

Simply, to create the appearance of value, so that people will pay for digital items, the only thing that gives them value is the demand vs the supply. Even if demand decreases (which it will as there are more and more options) if supply is 0 value will always be maintained.

(Yes, that's the one, thanks.) Ah, yes, if you hold the MMO side to a TCG market model then I can see your point. However, I would not hold the MMO side of Hex to the TCG standard of going out of print. Rather, I would ask what is right for an MMO that uses a TCG as its engine? This is uncharted territory, unlike the well-charted TCG territory. (EDIT: Seems Xen already said this.)


Also, from a pve standpoint, a huge complaint with wow was always the earlier zones were static in time, it was like time traveling, you go to the barens and wailing caverns and everything was exactly the same. After cata, now you level up to where it is time to go to burning crusade outlands zones in the present, you pass through the dark portal, and you're suddenly 3 years ago in the story, it doesn't make any sense. Dungeons leaving the game, and things being removed in their original forms to be updated and replaced by new fresh up to date in the timeline of the story content is ideal. This always staying the same is an artifact from MMORPG's that we can now move past.
I agree with you on this. I am totally on board with an evolving world. I just ask that they put the retired stuff in an archive where you can still go play it if you want to.

Unhurtable
07-10-2013, 04:09 PM
Simply, to create the appearance of value, so that people will pay for digital items, the only thing that gives them value is the demand vs the supply. Even if demand decreases (which it will as there are more and more options) if supply is 0 value will always be maintained.

Also, from a pve standpoint, a huge complaint with wow was always the earlier zones were static in time, it was like time traveling, you go to the barens and wailing caverns and everything was exactly the same. After cata, now you level up to where it is time to go to burning crusade outlands zones in the present, you pass through the dark portal, and you're suddenly 3 years ago in the story, it doesn't make any sense. Dungeons leaving the game, and things being removed in their original forms to be updated and replaced by new fresh up to date in the timeline of the story content is ideal. This always staying the same is an artifact from MMORPG's that we can now move past.

The economic argument seems to be zero-sum, since the hoarders would gain about as much as the "late collectors" would have to pay for said items. Even though its a voluntary transaction between two individuals, the "late collectors" would gain as much as the hoarders would lose if the content was available.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to play parts of the story that have happened in the past. I agree that it might be confusing for new players (as per the WoW example), but the way I see it it would be like buying Game 2 and then suddenly not being able to play Game 1 because "well the story has progressed". I cannot argue against "new players should have the best experience possible", but I don't think a "time vault" would ruin the new player experience if it was implemented correctly. It doesn't even have to be cannon, just "enter the time vault to relive the history or entrath". It doesn't have to be "go back in time and save Character X from the other timetravelling meanies".

fitzle
07-10-2013, 04:41 PM
One of the biggest challenges of MMO RPG's is keeping up with 'end game content'. It's a never ending struggle to put enough content out there to keep players playing and not quitting out of boredom. I just can't imagine CZE getting rid of any PVE dungeons/raids just because of the CCG elements.

Unless they have a fairly awesome ability to keep putting out PvE content so that they can keep up with the demand of content churners I just don't see it happening.

Yoss
07-10-2013, 04:57 PM
Unless they have a fairly awesome ability to keep putting out PvE content so that they can keep up with the demand of content churners I just don't see it happening.
Exactly. More content = better. I do like the idea of an evolving world, which requires content retirement, but the retired stuff should not disappear; it should just find a new home. The simplest answer is a "time vault" or "archive" but I'm sure there are more creative (and dev expensive) ways to do it if they want to.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 06:56 PM
The MMO side does have distinct RPG qualities though, like earning rewards for completing dungeons, character progression, etc etc. I know for a fact that items that are only earned through time and effort and RNG will have value - more than enough value to prevent it from becoming problem. MMO's have proven that time and again - look how long it can take to earn a piece of gear that makes all of 1% of difference to your damage/healing etc - yet people value that upgrade and if they can shortcut by buying it on the auction house, they will - sometimes at insane prices.

This is an interesting statement, because A) Cory specifically tried to distance hex at an mmotcg from mmorpg's. I believe it was a huge mistake calling this game an MMO, the dungeons are all single player, there's only one pve experience that involves more than 1 person at a time, and pve is largely 1v1. At best it's a multi-user domain, or a MUD. Then it wouldn't have all of these connotations attached. Also, B) They have proved nothing of the sort, they have proved that rare items that are useful or powerful will have value. How they became rare is irrelevant. More importantly, the commons that make a certain deck function will not be valuable regardless of crafting until the dungeon is no longer dropping any loot, then people who just played it for a little while and didn't get every card they needed can potentially make a profit still for their time by selling previously more common cards, which now are also rare.


Exactly. More content = better. I do like the idea of an evolving world, which requires content retirement, but the retired stuff should not disappear; it should just find a new home. The simplest answer is a "time vault" or "archive" but I'm sure there are more creative (and dev expensive) ways to do it if they want to.

More content is not always better. Too much content can be overwhelming and cause you to lose the thread and heart of a story. It can also create certainty to less effect that mystery had previously. (Here's a video discussing this thought that I saw yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqFm1ei6mjo&list=PLB9B0CA00461BB187 The most relevent bits start at 8:48)
That video also makes an argument against the time vault, the story that a new player that joins 5 years after the game launches could actually envision a better set of engagements than actually existed previously, and could be let down by previous events, ruining the game experience for them, as well as forcing them to feel like they have to go through all of these things, even worse if they feel they have to then earn every single card out of every single dungeon that existed for the last 5 years. It would be incredibly overwhelming.

CZE has to decide, let down some completionists that always want access to things, or run a cohesive manageable game for everyone. They seem to be leaning towards the latter, I personally hope they stick to that path.

Hatts
07-10-2013, 07:14 PM
Simply put I think it breaks immersion having a dungeon retirement home, no matter what you call it. Either you explain it in game through some Deus ex machina (time portal) or ignore it entirely (archive).

This is especially true when many of the dungeons won't be dungeons at all, they will be more like quests. 5 years from now they will lack context unless the rest of the world is reproduced in the archive as well.

I'm not suggesting wholesale dungeon retirement, only when it makes sense in the story. An arena where two factions battle it out is a better story when there's a victor, and it fits the story that new factions take up the reins. Having ardent or underworld win certain story lines which changes the ownership of an area (and hence what is sold, what quests are given and to who, etc) is good story telling.

I'd support the idea of having the other faction come back later and take it back as a better approach to allow access to retired dungeons (although I would prefer updated content over the old stuff)

Kietay
07-10-2013, 08:11 PM
Step 1.) Watch Extra Credits.
Step 2.) Know exactly what games need.

No MMO has ever had too much content. People always end up doing every piece of content in the game 10 times over. Anything you can do with less content you can do with more.

Gwaer
07-10-2013, 08:25 PM
Step 1.) Watch Extra Credits.
Step 2.) Know exactly what games need.

No MMO has ever had too much content. People always end up doing every piece of content in the game 10 times over. Anything you can do with less content you can do with more.
Extra credits is quite a good web series, you can learn a lot from it yes, I've been watching it in marathon the last couple of days.
The secret world, and to a lesser extent wow both suffer from the pains of too much content. Wow cannot keep all of its content updated and relevant so 90% of it sits unused. the secret world suffers from basically lack of direction due to throwing too much crap into the blender and pressing go.

More importantly, wow suffers from a flawed mechanic. The gear grind, the primary complaint you're basing your statements on is the fact that people clamor for more wow content almost immediately after it is released, they need a constant stream of gear, and mechanics, things it will be quite a bit easier to create in hex. When the original storylines of vanilla wow were lost in cata there was not a huge uprising of players from not having access to old content. Certain there were grumblings about it because people had not lost access to these things before, but in losing it, the game was vastly improved. If you have to associate hex with wow at least let hex move forward from something wow already uncovered.

Xenavire
07-11-2013, 04:46 AM
Extra credits is quite a good web series, you can learn a lot from it yes, I've been watching it in marathon the last couple of days.
The secret world, and to a lesser extent wow both suffer from the pains of too much content. Wow cannot keep all of its content updated and relevant so 90% of it sits unused. the secret world suffers from basically lack of direction due to throwing too much crap into the blender and pressing go.

More importantly, wow suffers from a flawed mechanic. The gear grind, the primary complaint you're basing your statements on is the fact that people clamor for more wow content almost immediately after it is released, they need a constant stream of gear, and mechanics, things it will be quite a bit easier to create in hex. When the original storylines of vanilla wow were lost in cata there was not a huge uprising of players from not having access to old content. Certain there were grumblings about it because people had not lost access to these things before, but in losing it, the game was vastly improved. If you have to associate hex with wow at least let hex move forward from something wow already uncovered.

There was always a group of people saying vanilla was better, and they gained a lot of supported when Cata hit. Blizzard themselves made comments to the effect that Cataclysm was the worst expansion they have ever made (I don't think they said it so straightforward, but it was acknowledged that it wasn't successful.) By and large, existing fans hated it, and new players had complaints about the flow of the game - many, if not all of the changed zones became too linear.

WoW only shows one thing - removing old content makes people upset. And it has proven it time and again since they day they revamped Naxx.

Shadowelf
07-11-2013, 05:05 AM
WoW only shows one thing - removing old content makes people upset. And it has proven it time and again since they day they revamped Naxx.

True but Cataclysm is an extreme case; it didn't simply rotate content, or supplanted dungeons, it changed the perception of the whole wow world. Now i haven't played cata (stopped just before it came out), but i imagine that any game that is up to so many changes, is up to an uproar. Its another thing to refresh content, and a whole different story to break people's ties to the game

Xenavire
07-11-2013, 05:20 AM
So what you are saying is that if they did it incrementally, no-one would have cared? Even if those changes were interesting, people still care. Look at the raid turned heroic dungeons in Cata - all the charm of the original raid is gone, and when the content wasn't required to progress, it became increasingly difficult to find a group for it, because very few people enjoyed it. Is that a good change, even if it was small?
(I dont even remember the names clearly, but I thought they were Zul'Gurub and Zul'Aman).

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 05:36 AM
Cata may have been terrible, that was what the uproar was about, not the loss of the original content, Also if that content hadn't been sitting there unused for 6 years people wouldn't have been so attached to it, they should have been updating that content well before they got around to it.

Shadowelf
07-11-2013, 05:44 AM
So what you are saying is that if they did it incrementally, no-one would have cared?


All i'm saying Xen is that the changes where so radical that everybody cared; as i said above its one thing to rotate content, and a whole different story to change ppl's perception of the whole world (like Cata did), or change systems like the one ur describing (raid turned heroic dungeons), that ppl could familiarize with.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 05:48 AM
I missed your naxx comment, That is something I can directly talk about. I did the original Naxx. It was much better, it was more difficult, only something like 3% of the wow population at the time even killed 1 boss in the original naxx. It was fun and hard, my guild cleared it. I was pretty excited when they brought it back, you know what the problem was? It was awful, they made it so incredibly easy, and ruined a lot of the encounters by dumbing them down. That's once again what the problem was, they took something innovative and challenging and made it crap. The contents of the complaints are important, you can't just say everyone hated this so everything related to it must have been wrong, you have to identify what people hated.

Xenavire
07-11-2013, 07:12 AM
Ok, I understand what you are getting at. But consider this - every attempt WoW made, ended up ruining the content. Do you want to risk that in Hex? I trust them, but coming up with a constant flow of good content is difficult.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 07:19 AM
Ok, I understand what you are getting at. But consider this - every attempt WoW made, ended up ruining the content. Do you want to risk that in Hex? I trust them, but coming up with a constant flow of good content is difficult.
That's very true, coming up with new and innovative things is very difficult, a lot of wow's problems I feel stem from their extremely long release cycles. I feel like if hex makes an effort early on to keep dungeons relevant, even if a lot of it is just different factions taking over with slightly different card rewards but quite similar mechanics. Only very occasionally the brand new dungeon and new ideas coming out, then they will have a chance to listen and collect player feedback, and since there is precedence for removing and redesigning dungeons they can use a more iterative release program, constantly improving what is out there rather than just leaving it as it is. I'm hoping that when cards are disappearing due to dungeon changes at least some of the time it is because they have improved on the idea and are now doing it better. If they misstep and make it worse, they can always go back and redesign it again after a reasonable amount of time has passed for people to really bite into the new one.

Xenavire
07-11-2013, 09:28 AM
That's very true, coming up with new and innovative things is very difficult, a lot of wow's problems I feel stem from their extremely long release cycles. I feel like if hex makes an effort early on to keep dungeons relevant, even if a lot of it is just different factions taking over with slightly different card rewards but quite similar mechanics. Only very occasionally the brand new dungeon and new ideas coming out, then they will have a chance to listen and collect player feedback, and since there is precedence for removing and redesigning dungeons they can use a more iterative release program, constantly improving what is out there rather than just leaving it as it is. I'm hoping that when cards are disappearing due to dungeon changes at least some of the time it is because they have improved on the idea and are now doing it better. If they misstep and make it worse, they can always go back and redesign it again after a reasonable amount of time has passed for people to really bite into the new one.

That does sound acceptable, but would they need to remove dungeons at all then? (I guess there would always be candidates that were not working well that might be better to just remove and replace.)

But I think if they slowly tweak the more popular ones, updating as much as the story arc requires, removal shouldn't be strictly required. The archive system could hold any unpopular ones or popular ones that had to be removed for other reasons, and nothing would stop them tweaking parts of those 'archived' dungeons (it would still be a part of the story, even if it wasn't the most compelling gameplay.)

And maybe when it is needed they could change the cards available at any time in any dungeon - and in a lore sense it could be some kind of treasure trove to supply 'reprints'.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 10:21 AM
So, this has been a lovely rabbit hole to go down, but maybe we should bring it back to topic. Does anything from the last 90 posts about whether they should rotate/retire content and the various ways they could do content rotation/retirement change what we'd expect from "tournament PVE"? I say no. "Tournament PVE" should still be a completion race starting on release day of new content, and the primary proposal from this thread (link) remains unchanged in the 150 posts since it was put forth.

Diesbudt
07-11-2013, 10:25 AM
So, this has been a lovely rabbit hole to go down, but maybe we should bring it back to topic. Does anything from the last 90 posts about whether they should rotate/retire content and the various ways they could do content rotation/retirement change what we'd expect from "tournament PVE"? I say no. "Tournament PVE" should still be a completion race starting on release day of new content, and the primary proposal from this thread (link) remains unchanged in the 150 posts since it was put forth.

But that is not competition technically. MMO "world/server firsts" were a community created competition. Not one that was designed. MMOs just backed the community in it later on via achievements and such. So I do not believe for sake of argument and definition that is competitive PvE. What I would see competitive PvE is a dungeon/raid that is released, and it has a leaderboard at how fast (timed)/far (difficulty increasing endless waves) people got in the dungeon.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 10:26 AM
I still disagree that tournament PVE should be a completion race. It's lazy tournament design and a dull idea that adds nothing other than an incentive to power through your content as fast as possible and then throw it away. First completion is a nice statistic to have, a nice footnote to have attached to your account. But ultimately short sighted and droll.

Hatts
07-11-2013, 10:43 AM
So, this has been a lovely rabbit hole to go down, but maybe we should bring it back to topic. Does anything from the last 90 posts about whether they should rotate/retire content and the various ways they could do content rotation/retirement change what we'd expect from "tournament PVE"? I say no. "Tournament PVE" should still be a completion race starting on release day of new content, and the primary proposal from this thread (link) remains unchanged in the 150 posts since it was put forth.

Rabbit hole or time portal? ;)

I'm a bit biased but I still think that's the best solution. For those not interested in the world first competition their account bound bonuses continue to work. Treating it is a PvE tournament fits with Crypto's wording on the KS page. RL's still have a bit of a bonus because they can figure out how to beat the raid with a bit of a safety net and then run the raid again without the bonuses. Those who want to apply the strictest definition to beating a raid can filter out the results they deem unworthy. Everybody wins!

Yoss
07-11-2013, 10:53 AM
But that is not competition technically. MMO "world/server firsts" were a community created competition. Not one that was designed. MMOs just backed the community in it later on via achievements and such. So I do not believe for sake of argument and definition that is competitive PvE. What I would see competitive PvE is a dungeon/raid that is released, and it has a leaderboard at how fast (timed)/far (difficulty increasing endless waves) people got in the dungeon.
I'm all in favor of more tournament modes if people would like them. Shall I add "speed runs" to the list of requested tracking? (The enless waves idea is good too, but that would be the mechanice of a specific raid or dungeon, not a generic thing for all raids and dungeons.)

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 11:12 AM
I proposed quite a few different options for tournent PVE. I'd like to hear your specific rebuttals if you've a problem with them enough to ignore them yoss.

Id be fine with a world first mode where you're given deck constraints to work under while attempting to defeat a raid. There could even be different difficulties of deck restraints. But general world first completion should not be a 'tournament'

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 11:42 AM
I proposed quite a few different options for tournent PVE. I'd like to hear your specific rebuttals if you've a problem with them enough to ignore them yoss.

Id be fine with a world first mode where you're given deck constraints to work under while attempting to defeat a raid. There could even be different difficulties of deck restraints. But general world first completion should not be a 'tournament'
Wouldn't all these things have to be at least considered a tournament if it involves a raid in someway because RL blessing would be able to be active for them as it applies to all "non-tournament PVE". Unless they're changing after the fact that its all "non-tournament PVE" except this this and that, which would be deceptive at best. I realize I'm kind of getting into semantics and all, but for a fair few that distinction matters. It didn't say all "non-competitive PVE".

Yoss
07-11-2013, 11:48 AM
I proposed quite a few different options for tournent PVE. I'd like to hear your specific rebuttals if you've a problem with them enough to ignore them yoss.
The only one I'm aware of you making is post 184, which I answered in post 186.


Id be fine with a world first mode where you're given deck constraints to work under while attempting to defeat a raid. There could even be different difficulties of deck restraints.
Sure, that'd be fine as another mode. Shall I add it as well? It doesn't replace the tried-and-true world first race.


But general world first completion should not be a 'tournament'
Any particular reasoning? (Maybe you've said before and you can link me back to it?)


EDIT:
The proposal in post 133 takes into account that not everyone will want to compete (and thus have RL/mercs disabled), so they would have the chance to opt out and use their stuff freely. As soon as someone wants to compete, they have to give up account-bound bonuses.

Bottom line is, account-bound stuff should not apply when competition is going on, regardless of how many different competitive modes we can dream up.

ShadowTycho
07-11-2013, 11:51 AM
I want to see a raid boss gauntlet or tower of power, where you have to fight your way up from the start with the same deck/group.

don't know if its been suggested but if it was it was a good suggestion. >.>

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 11:54 AM
Bottom line is, account-bound stuff should not apply when [tournaments] is going on, regardless of how many different [tournament] modes we can dream up.
Fixed

Yoss
07-11-2013, 11:55 AM
Additional "tournament PVE" modes suggested, beyond the obvious World First that people will expect:
Can apply to any raid/dungeon:
1) speed runs
2) deck-constraint runs (block a particular faction or color, 100-card singleton, etc)

Might require a special setup:
1) Survival mode (live as long as you can and/or beat as many as you can before dying)

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 11:56 AM
I still disagree that tournament PVE should be a completion race. It's lazy tournament design and a dull idea that adds nothing other than an incentive to power through your content as fast as possible and then throw it away. First completion is a nice statistic to have, a nice footnote to have attached to your account. But ultimately short sighted and droll.

Also you're against having dedicated tournaments based on current dungeons that would be very easy to implement just because you feel tournaments should be available all the time? The world first race is only available once, then it is gone. this lets them offer multiple tournaments repeatedly based on multiple raids or dungeons, that's superior in every way to a straight up world first race, not to mention my rebuttal of world first as a primary tournament mode in the quoted text above.

World first is not a tournament. No one should expect it, you keep pushing that line but people shouldn't swallow it.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 11:56 AM
@Gorgol:

That's fine, but it's just semantics. My arguments are unchanged.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 11:57 AM
I just don't want people confused. We need to use the same nomenclature in our discussions I feel.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 12:03 PM
Also you're against having dedicated tournaments based on current dungeons that would be very easy to implement just because you feel tournaments should be available all the time? The world first race is only available once, then it is gone. this lets them offer multiple tournaments repeatedly based on multiple raids or dungeons, that's superior in every way to a straight up world first race, not to mention my rebuttal of world first as a primary tournament mode in the quoted text above.
And what's wrong with having both?


World first is not a tournament. No one should expect it, you keep pushing that line but people shouldn't swallow it.
We're both making a statement of opinion. I say "World First is an obvious tournament mode" you say it is not. My position is backed by multiple other voices and the "horse's mouth" so to speak: Meldryn. Meldryn seems to expect world firsts to be considered "tournament". I've yet to hear anyone here claim higher credentials than Meldryn as far as knowing what high-end MMO PVE entails and expects. If someone here has credentials to bring to the table that compare with or trump Meldryn's, then I'll be glad to listen. Anyone with lower credentials (like me) must resort to logic and argument as best as possible.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 12:04 PM
No, I'm not making a statement of opinion, I'm making a statement of linguistic fact. What you're describing cannot be shoehorned into the definition of a tournament. Here's an example from wikipedia, and merriam-webster for your perusal.


"A tournament is a competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) involving a relatively large number of competitors, all participating in a sport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport) or game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game). More specifically, the term may be used in either of two overlapping senses:


One or more competitions held at a single venue and concentrated into a relatively short time interval.
A competition involving multiple matches, each involving a subset of the competitors, with the overall tournament winner determined based on the combined results of these individual matches. These are common in those sports and games where each match must involve a small number of competitors: often precisely two, as in most team sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_sport), racket sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_sport) and combat sports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_sport), many card games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_game) and board games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game), and many forms of competitive debating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate). Such tournaments allow large numbers to compete against each other in spite of the restriction on numbers in a single match"


"
Definition of TOURNAMENT

1
a : a knightly sport of the Middle Ages between mounted combatants armed with blunted lances or swords and divided into two parties contesting for a prize or favor bestowed by the lady of the tournament
b : the whole series of knightly sports, jousts, and tilts occurring at one time and place

2
: a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event"

Additionally, world firsts got no rewards other than occasionally a title, and more often just street cred from other players. It was not a tournament in wow, it was not a tournament in EQ, it was not a tournament in any game I'm familiar with, it's just something players keep track of. I'm cool with people getting titles for world firsts. But to designate it an official tournament is silly. It just forces people to hyper-consume your content; Having points you can earn, fastest time with most completion, things that inspire people to repeatedly try an encounter to improve, that stuff is great tourney fodder... First person/group to fumble through it might be deserving of respect, but nothing else.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 12:27 PM
No, I'm not making a statement of opinion, I'm making a statement of linguistic fact. What you're describing cannot be shoehorned into the definition of a tournament. Here's an example from wikipedia, and merriam-webster for your perusal.
No "shoehorning" required. You've just armed me with more points for my argument, thanks.


"A tournament is a competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) involving a relatively large number of competitors, all participating in a sport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport) or game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game). More specifically, the term may be used in either of two overlapping senses:
OK, we're good so far. Hex should have "a relatively large number of competitors in a ... game".


One or more competitions held at a single venue and concentrated into a relatively short time interval.
Single venue: each specific raid or dungeon on the Hex servers
Relatively short time interval: from release until completion

A competition involving multiple matches, each involving a subset of the competitors, with the overall tournament winner determined based on the combined results of these individual matches.
Each raid (or dunegon) run is a match. The results are compared and combined to determine rank.


Definition of TOURNAMENT

1
a : a knightly sport of the Middle Ages between mounted combatants armed with blunted lances or swords and divided into two parties contesting for a prize or favor bestowed by the lady of the tournament
b : the whole series of knightly sports, jousts, and tilts occurring at one time and place

2
: a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event"
Definition 1: This is obviously not relevant to Hex and thus not to our discussion (regardless of which side you argue for).

Definition 2: This is the same as item 2 from the wiki. Each raid (or dungeon) run is a contest and the tournament consists of the totality and comparison of those runs.

Did you have a different reading?


It was not a tournament in wow
This is not true. It was a tournament in WoW, the tracking was just provided by third parties instead of Blizzard. However, the results mattered: those at the top were invited to perform at BlizzCon in an official capacity. Meldryn's guild, Premonition, was on stage at BlizzCon 2009 purely because they won several of the World First tournaments. Let's not quibble over linguistics when it's not necessary.


I'm cool with people getting titles for world firsts. But to designate it an official tournament is silly. It just forces people to hyper-consume your content, having points you can earn, fastest time with most completion, things that inspire people to repeatedly try an encounter to improve, that stuff is great tourney fodder... First person/group to fumble through it might be deserving of respect, but nothing else.
I'm trying to formulate a response to this part, but you seem to switch stances halfway through. You say it's silly, so I expect the next sentence to tell me why it's silly. Therefore hyper-consume, points to earn, fastest time, and things that inspire should all be reasons that it's silly. But wait, you end the sentence with "that stuff is great tourney fodder". So was that list of things telling me why an official tournament is silly or was it telling me what "great tourney fodder" is?

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 12:27 PM
No, I'm not making a statement of opinion, I'm making a statement of linguistic fact. What you're describing cannot be shoehorned into the definition of a tournament.
If this is so then that means RL Blessing (as the current explanation of it is: "non-TOURNAMENT" PvE) will be allowed. I imagine this to make those people happy.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 12:38 PM
Yoss- I don't know if you're being particularly obtuse or actually are having a problem with the definition of a tournament. There is no end time for world first, there could in theory be a raid that no one ever beats, it has no limiting factors whatsoever, the entire argument is just to try to reduce an already weak KS benefit to be even weaker. Also on release you'll be running a world first tournament consisting of 40 different things all running concurrently? It is a shoe-horn. Also "hex servers" as your location? That's a joke. A single area within hex would apply certainly.

Anyone serious about getting world firsts will have a RL with them if they feel it's a worthwhile advantage. There's literally nothing wrong with that, especially if world-first is a statistic tracked by players and the game, but has no real rewards, then if a group of people do end up winning a lot of raids/dungeons first they can be rewarded for their efforts, that reward doesn't make it a tournament though. Just rewarding dedicated players doing their thing.



I'm trying to formulate a response to this part, but you seem to switch stances halfway through. You say it's silly, so I expect the next sentence to tell me why it's silly. Therefore hyper-consume, points to earn, fastest time, and things that inspire should all be reasons that it's silly. But wait, you end the sentence with "that stuff is great tourney fodder". So was that list of things telling me why an official tournament is silly or was it telling me what "great tourney fodder" is?

Sorry, there should be a semicolon after the reason why it's silly (forcing people to hyper consume your content) I've corrected it now, if offers alternative explanations why it's silly and reasons to do it a different way and finishes with a summation why it's silly. So in essence, it's doing both.

Furthermore! If the world-first thing really needed to be "a thing" that the community just had to have, it could easily be implemented in a tournament sense. You'd just have to queue for the tournament version, which will only be available for a set amount of time. You could run it just like path of exile runs their tournaments, people all start at the same time it runs for a few hours, people that got the farthest win, and get points toward a league, then sometime later it opens up again for people to give it another shot. You can turn it into a tournament, but defaultly it cannot be a tournament.

Avedecus
07-11-2013, 12:59 PM
Frankly, I don't think CZE needs to do anything. If a group/guild gets a world first achievement with three raid leaders in the raid, the competitive community will likely just ignore them and write them off as casuals/carebears/whatever. In the end, I have a feeling that the only wins that will be respected are the ones done the "right" way.

In other words people should feel free to try for world firsts with RLs, but they better be ready to have an asterisk next to their name in the records.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 01:09 PM
Tournament = Competition.
Competition != Tournament.

In other words: A tournament is a competition; however, a competition does not mean it is a tournament.

Getting a world first is a competition, not a tournament.

"Wild West" format is a tournament with competition. (I only used Wild West because that is the only tournament we know of using PvE cards so far from the Devs).

Edit note: Removed PvE from in front of tournament and added "using PvE cards" to get my thoughts across more accurately.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 01:11 PM
good point. So far we only know of one confirmed pve tournament

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 01:16 PM
And honestly, the anything goes format is just a pvp format that allows pve cards, I certainly hope there's more actual PVE tournaments available than that. RL definitely wouldn't apply to it, too. So that's good.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 01:40 PM
And honestly, the anything goes format is just a pvp format that allows pve cards, I certainly hope there's more actual PVE tournaments available than that. RL definitely wouldn't apply to it, too. So that's good.

I hope there are more PvE tournaments also.

You are right that "Wild West" would be better classified as a PvP tournament with the rule set of using PvE cards / Champions / etc.

Stok3d
07-11-2013, 01:54 PM
so Gwaer, where do I sign up for this World First Tournament I keep hearing about?

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 02:00 PM
so Gwaer, where do I sign up for this World First Tournament I keep hearing about?
I too would like to sign up

Unhurtable
07-11-2013, 03:32 PM
so Gwaer, where do I sign up for this World First Tournament I keep hearing about?


I too would like to sign up

If we are going by the definitions in this post


No, I'm not making a statement of opinion, I'm making a statement of linguistic fact. What you're describing cannot be shoehorned into the definition of a tournament. Here's an example from wikipedia, and merriam-webster for your perusal....

Neither of them require signing up.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 03:45 PM
I believe they didn't mean it literally. I doubt you'll need to 'sign up' for any tournament, just join it when there are slots available, or you are invited to it, or it will be an open tournament that anyone can take part in.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 03:47 PM
So world-first will be an open tournament, got it, thanks

Yoss
07-11-2013, 03:53 PM
There is no end time for world first, there could in theory be a raid that no one ever beats, it has no limiting factors whatsoever
By this reasoning, I should ask: is there an end time for a baseball game? Your answer would have to be "no" because a baseball game can go indefinitely as long as the score remains tied. Other games have this same model. An "end time" does not need to be precicely a specified date/time; it can be a specified event (e.g. when the 20th competitor completes the objective, end tournament). As for a raid that no one can beat, dang, that would make it all the more impressive to get World First, eh?


the entire argument is just to try to reduce an already weak KS benefit to be even weaker.
Ad hominem doesn't cut it, sorry. You seek to impune my motives, yet in addition to ridicule being an irrelevant form of argumentation, I have also already stated that my objective is not to nerf Raid Leader (or other account-bound bonuses). My objective is to enable fair competitive PVE.


Also on release you'll be running a world first tournament consisting of 40 different things all running concurrently?
Yes. Each dungeon and each raid is its own tournament, tracked separately. I do not know if the various content will be serial (you must do A before B before C) or parallel (you can do A, B, and C in any order you want). If serial, then whoever gets World First in Dungeon A has a leg up for Raid A leading to Dungeon B and Raid B and so on. If parallel, then competitors will obviously have to choose their battles carefully because it might not be feasible to get World First in every single one.


"hex servers" as your location? That's a joke. A single area within hex would apply certainly.
I've updated to clarify, thanks.


Anyone serious about getting world firsts will have a RL with them if they feel it's a worthwhile advantage. There's literally nothing wrong with that
Actually there is something wrong with allowing RL to be unrestricted in competitive PVE. Let's all re-read Meldryn's definitive article on the subject (link). (I just re-read it myself, word for word.) There are also plenty of other posts in this thread that detail why parity of internal constraints is so important to healthy competition.


especially if world-first is a statistic tracked by players and the game, but has no real rewards, then if a group of people do end up winning a lot of raids/dungeons first they can be rewarded for their efforts, that reward doesn't make it a tournament though. Just rewarding dedicated players doing their thing.
If account-bound bonuses are allowed, then they're not just being "rewarded for their efforts", they're taking advantage of a biased playing field.


Sorry, there should be a semicolon after the reason why it's silly (forcing people to hyper consume your content) I've corrected it now, if offers alternative explanations why it's silly and reasons to do it a different way and finishes with a summation why it's silly. So in essence, it's doing both.
OK, now that you've updated...

I'm cool with people getting titles for world firsts. But to designate it an official tournament is silly. It just forces people to hyper-consume your content
What do you mean by "hyper-consume"? Why is "hyper-consumption" a bad thing? Doesn't a game developer want people to aggressively consume their game content?


Having points you can earn, fastest time with most completion, things that inspire people to repeatedly try an encounter to improve, that stuff is great tourney fodder... First person/group to fumble through it might be deserving of respect, but nothing else.
Those are all reasonable ideas. Why not have all of the above? What is it about World First competiion that isn't worthy?


Furthermore! If the world-first thing really needed to be "a thing" that the community just had to have, it could easily be implemented in a tournament sense. You'd just have to queue for the tournament version, which will only be available for a set amount of time. You could run it just like path of exile runs their tournaments, people all start at the same time it runs for a few hours, people that got the farthest win, and get points toward a league, then sometime later it opens up again for people to give it another shot. You can turn it into a tournament, but defaultly it cannot be a tournament.
For a true World First Tournament to work, it needs to be virgin content, not something that players have seen before. (Recurring speed runs can also be a tournamenet mode, but is of a different type than World First.)

So, in summary, we now have several fun ideas for "tournament PVE". The one that people will expect (I refer you again to Meldryn's definitive article on the subject (link)) is a World First Tournament for all new content as it is released. Other things that we've thought of are: speed runs, deck-build-limited runs, and survival modes. All of these "tournament PVE" modes must be assumed to follow the proposal in post 133 of this thread (link).

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 04:07 PM
They're not called baseball tournaments for a reason.

It's not an ad-hominem, the very next thing someone said after your post was "then people can use raid leader" That is the primary motivation of this conversation, to take raid leader off the table right out of the gate.

Again, world first to complete a dungeon is not a valid medium for a tournament. you can easily just designate which groups completed a dungeon with raid leader and without, and let the community decide which it finds more relevant. No reason to call it a tournament, when it still isn;t one

Your next point easily falls into the same category... Stipulate which people used RL. Still no reason to classify it a tournament.

No, it forces people to ignore story and scene and pacing and extras and special and to continue to improve after their first completion, and instead to move on to the next place so they can get another world first. Going through content as quickly as possible is not the idea. That's one of wow's biggest problems, and the reason why their playerbase fluctuates so much between expansions.

See, a worlds first competition is fine, it's not a tournament, raid leader would still apply, people that use it to complete the dungeon would still get the title and whatnot, heck there could even be titles for people that use 3, 2, 1, and 0 raid leaders in their raids to complete the dungeon. The issue here is if you call world first a tournament then you by default turn off raid leader for people, and make it a liability when a dungeon is first released to not use it just in case you get lucky the first few times. It's wrongheaded and unnecessary when the same goals can be accomplished in other much less intrusive ways.


That's a fallacy, letting people see content prior to racing in it is not necessary. You can change the content slightly, you can open up a different area or mechanic, you can restrict decks, champs or mercs. You can do all sorts of things to make it a newly challenging experience even if they have beaten it before. Also, by running it repeatedly over short time spans it really does level the playing field, everyone knows when it starts, everyone knows how long they have to win, and the person with the fastest deck gets the most points, next time people try to improve, at the end of a "season" the points are all added you you have a first complete champion based on points. In that setting RL wouldn't work, likely mercs wouldn't be allowed, and you haven't devalued RL buff in the base game out of the gate for no reason.

In summary, your multi quoting stuff is really annoying. Also, Meldryn has a great article, but it's MMORPG focused, and makes a lot of assumptions about an MMOTCG and its functioning that I am not comfortable with. A general open everyone is participating base world first "tournament" is damaging and infeasible for a release of a 40 dungeon game. A tournament should be a controlled environment with set rules and constraints that everyone is playing by. People have been focusing on RL but honestly mercs play a factor in this as well, and those shouldn't be allowed in a tournament setting either.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 04:14 PM
People have been focusing on RL but honestly mercs play a factor in this as well, and those shouldn't be allowed in a tournament setting either.
Good point, we should ban all mercenaries in tournament settings too. +1

Yoss
07-11-2013, 04:31 PM
Have you guys even read post 133 recently? If you had, you wouldn't be talking about mercs like that.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 04:35 PM
No yoss, no one goes and reads 133 posts in on a thread just to look and see if someone has edited 6 days after it was posted.

That stuff really just isn't cool...

And the entire post is still pointless if we just make tournament play how it should be, and have set tournaments at set times that do not allow RL, or Mercs, or any sort of exclusive at all.

Diesbudt
07-11-2013, 04:37 PM
No yoss, no one goes and reads 133 posts in on a thread just to look and see if someone has edited 6 days after it was posted.

That stuff really just isn't cool...

And the entire post is still pointless if we just make tournament play how it should be, and have set tournaments at set times that do not allow RL, or Mercs, or any sort of exclusive at all.

This, once a post has been replyed to at least once, or falls minimum 1-2 pages behind current page, editing it is no real help. And it is better to post-anew.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 04:39 PM
No yoss, no one goes and reads 133 posts in on a thread just to look and see if someone has edited 6 days after it was posted.

That stuff really just isn't cool...
When I link back to something, it's because it's relevant, edited or not. When I link back to it, I expect anyone arguing with me to know what it is. A link is shorthand for total inclusion of the linked content. So yes, I expect you to pay attention to the details that I am spending great pains to include. I do not throw links around willy-nilly. Maybe some others around here do, but I do not.

(PS I'm still working on a reply to your long post)

Yoss
07-11-2013, 04:42 PM
This, once a post has been replyed to at least once, or falls minimum 1-2 pages behind current page, editing it is no real help. And it is better to post-anew.
If I am providing a post-link, then it is readily available; just right click and select "open in new tab" and you'll go right to it.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 04:43 PM
The issue isn't that you linked to it, the issue is editing posts 6 days after they're made, any lunatic trying to catch up in this thread will have an even harder time if people are doing that. =/ Many forums these days don't allow editing after a certain time, this one is just very... Feature light.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 05:17 PM
Have you guys even read post 133 recently? If you had, you wouldn't be talking about mercs like that.
Sounds like too much work to be worth it, jeez. Just ban it in the tournament setting, period. In general use allow it. Problem solved.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 05:26 PM
Sounds like too much work to be worth it, jeez. Just ban it in the tournament setting, period. In general use allow it. Problem solved.
Yes, that would seem simple enough, wouldn't it? And yet, I cannot seem to convince all parties (just Gwaer still here at this point, though there have been others) that it really is just that simple. In all fairness, the discussions have given some small amount of refinement to the proposal, so the effort is not totally wasted.

(OK, the big response is almost done, an hour and a half in composition.)

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 05:27 PM
Yes, that would seem simple enough, wouldn't it? And yet, I cannot seem to convince all parties (just Gwaer still here at this point, though there have been others) that it really is just that simple. In all fairness, the discussions have given some small amount of refinement to the proposal, so the effort is not totally wasted.

(OK, the big response is almost done, an hour and a half in composition.)

You do realise that I am in the ban it and all mercs from all tournaments camp, and you are not right yoss?

The issue is you want the default nature of the released dungeons to be tournaments which makes this impossible. If you back off on that, and have first complete be a gentlemen's agreement\competition tracked by third parties and rewarded by CZE in exemplary cases, and do actual first complete tournies in a tournament setting (if this is something the player base wants in addition to normal first complete) with clearly defined rules, then the two of us have no issue.

Heck, CZE can even track the first complete competition, and put asterisks by peoples names if necessary. I think that's a substandard result still, because first complete should just be first complete by whatever means you have, be it RL or mercs or anything. The tournies are where it really matters, and those will be regulated to not allow any mercs or bonuses at all.

PS: I'm going out to dinner, looking forward to your magnum opus when I return. =)

WrathofShane
07-11-2013, 05:32 PM
Theres going to be PvE things where raidleader does nothing, and this is going to be where the competition is at.. Raidleader is the only in game advantage.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 06:04 PM
To the comment on multi-quoting:
I'll agree that multi-quoting is not as pleasing to the eye at first glance, but multiquoting is far more readable than just responding without context, in my opinion. To me, your post (multi-quoted below :p) was hard to follow because I had to keep scrolling back up to figure out what you were referring to. Multi-quoting helps organize the thoughts and makes sure readers know exactly which points I am responding to for context.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 06:05 PM
Sorry in advance for the long post (this isn't it; I'd be over 10,000 characters otherwise). Gwaer really made me think through this one. Nice work, Gwaer. I know we can reach agreement eventually. :)

Yoss
07-11-2013, 06:06 PM
They're not called baseball tournaments for a reason.
OK, so baseball wasn't the best example. A World First Tournament with a triggered end time based on number of completions is still a viable tournament. (You could also end it after the first day/week/month if you MUST have a fixed time. Or you could do a combination: it ends after 20 completes or after one month whichever comes first.) Also, as I discuss later, you don't have to use the word "tournament" if you don't want to, but account-bound buffs still need to be turned off during competition.


It's not an ad-hominem, the very next thing someone said after your post was "then people can use raid leader" That is the primary motivation of this conversation, to take raid leader off the table right out of the gate.
The primary motivation is to help define what areas of the game will be competitive and make sure those areas have a level playing field. I really don't care if you call those competitive areas a "tournament" or an "eggplant" or any other name you like; it is what it is no matter what you call it. Also, it is not just Raid Leader, it is all account-bound bonuses. If you think this is all about Raid Leader, then you need to go re-read the proposal in post 133 (link).


Again, world first to complete a dungeon is not a valid medium for a tournament. you can easily just designate which groups completed a dungeon with raid leader and without, and let the community decide which it finds more relevant. No reason to call it a tournament, when it still isn;t one. Your next point easily falls into the same category... Stipulate which people used RL. Still no reason to classify it a tournament.
It sure sounds like you're arguing in favor of what's already in the proposal in post 133 (link). (Avoiding the word "tournament" doesn't really change anything about the proposal. I'm willing to change the wording if that's all you need in order to agree with the proposal.) If so, have we've finally reached agreement?


No, it forces people to ignore story and scene and pacing and extras and special and to continue to improve after their first completion, and instead to move on to the next place so they can get another world first. Going through content as quickly as possible is not the idea. That's one of wow's biggest problems, and the reason why their playerbase fluctuates so much between expansions.
You have some very interesting points here. I think they are slightly tangental to the conversation, but not invalid. Do the players that I call "PVE Competitors" in my Stakeholder Analysis (link) care at all about "story and scene and pacing and extras" and so on? No. The PVE Competitors' only goal is to win in a PVE competition. If there's "fluff" along the way, fine, but it's not their priority. The ones that care about "fluff" (and I use that term descriptively, not derisively) are the ones I call Completionists and/or Casuals. So I have to ask, is the Casual player's enjoyment of the "fluff" in any way impeded by the Competitor's disregard thereof? I would think the answer is "no".


See, a worlds first competition is fine, it's not a tournament, raid leader would still apply, people that use it to complete the dungeon would still get the title and whatnot, heck there could even be titles for people that use 3, 2, 1, and 0 raid leaders in their raids to complete the dungeon. The issue here is if you call world first a tournament then you by default turn off raid leader for people, and make it a liability when a dungeon is first released to not use it just in case you get lucky the first few times. It's wrongheaded and unnecessary when the same goals can be accomplished in other much less intrusive ways.
What you're describing is almost exactly what's in the proposal already. You're avoiding the word "tournament" but you get the same result: segregated tracking for players who use account-bound exclusives. So we agree?


That's a fallacy, letting people see content prior to racing in it is not necessary. You can change the content slightly, you can open up a different area or mechanic, you can restrict decks, champs or mercs. You can do all sorts of things to make it a newly challenging experience even if they have beaten it before. Also, by running it repeatedly over short time spans it really does level the playing field, everyone knows when it starts, everyone knows how long they have to win, and the person with the fastest deck gets the most points, next time people try to improve, at the end of a "season" the points are all added you you have a first complete champion based on points. In that setting RL wouldn't work, likely mercs wouldn't be allowed, and you haven't devalued RL buff in the base game out of the gate for no reason.
Your "that's a fallacy" lead-in is a bit non-sequiter considering that I was making a statement of a single proposition, not an argument (propositions and logic leading to a conclusion). An argument can be fallacious, but a single proposition can only be TRUE or FALSE.

As for the next bit, you're basically confirming the truth of my proposition (that competitive PVE content needs to be virgin) by stating different ways that non-virgin content can be altered to emulate a virgin state for competition purposes. What you're proposing are more modes for "tournament PVE" to explore in addition to the World First Tournament idea, which is fine but does not invalidate the claim that World Firsts are the competitive mode of choice for MMO gamers. There is a big difference between: "start from scratch and be the first to find a solution to this puzzle" and "take a known solution to this puzzle and find an optimization for speed". The latter is not nearly as interesting to me, though it can clearly be a competition.

Finally, you continue to say, without basis, that the proposal in post 133 (link) will somehow devalue the Raid Leader buffs, and further that is is "for no reason". The proposal would allow a player to run the RL buffs (and/or mercs) any time he wants. The only stipulation, which is totally fair and in line with the RL kickstarter description, is that if the player chooses to have RL active then his play will not be considered equivalent to those without it for the purposes of competition.


Meldryn has a great article, but it's MMORPG focused, and makes a lot of assumptions about an MMOTCG and its functioning that I am not comfortable with. A general open everyone is participating base world first "tournament" is damaging and infeasible for a release of a 40 dungeon game. A tournament should be a controlled environment with set rules and constraints that everyone is playing by. People have been focusing on RL but honestly mercs play a factor in this as well, and those shouldn't be allowed in a tournament setting either.
I totally agree with everything you said from "a tournament should" to the end. The proposal in post 133 (already linked plenty of times in this post) covers all account-bound bonuses, not just Raid Leader stuff. For the first part, if the supposedly-questionable assumptions you refer to are the ones you state here, then Meldryn is still spot on. In the third paragraph of post 306, with the 133 proposal assumed, I already indicated a feasible and fair way to handle a World First competition. I'm not seeing what's "damaging and infeasible".


You do realise that I am in the ban it and all mercs from all tournaments camp, and you are not right yoss?
Since my post to this point has been in composition for an hour and a half and will probably be two hours by the time I finish, I can see why you'd still think that I am not in the "ban it and all mercs from all tournaments camp". However, by the time I post it and you've read this far, you will know that I favor removing all account-bound stuff from competition, just like you. Wonderful, right? We agree!


The issue is you want the default nature of the released dungeons to be tournaments which makes this impossible. If you back off on that, and have first complete be a gentlemen's agreement\competition tracked by third parties and rewarded by CZE in exemplary cases, and do actual first complete tournies in a tournament setting (if this is something the player base wants in addition to normal first complete) with clearly defined rules, then the two of us have no issue.

Heck, CZE can even track the first complete competition, and put asterisks by peoples names if necessary. I think that's a substandard result still, because first complete should just be first complete by whatever means you have, be it RL or mercs or anything. The tournies are where it really matters, and those will be regulated to not allow any mercs or bonuses at all.
I still think CZE should implement official World First tracking, should consider it to be competitive (thus invoking ban of account-bound stuff), and do not understand why it would be a problem. Again, from what I can tell after reading your post and composing this one of mine, I think we might actually agree on everything except maybe some finer details. Do you agree?

Kietay
07-11-2013, 06:06 PM
I am part raid leader. I am going to be world first everything!

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 06:38 PM
The issue here is if you call world first a tournament then you by default turn off raid leader for people, and make it a liability when a dungeon is first released to not use it just in case you get lucky the first few times. It's wrongheaded and unnecessary when the same goals can be accomplished in other much less intrusive ways.

This was glossed over in your major post, I'd like to see it discussed fully before I reply to the rest of it. I think it's the crux of our differences.

My argument is that by default if world first is a serious tracked competition to the point where it is a tournament. Everyone who want to level Mercs instead of a primary class, and everyone with RL, when the game first releases is forced to turn off their buff they've never used. Put aside their Mercs they want to play and try to grind world firsts. This is detrimental in my opinion to those people. Raid leaders have one area they excell. Raids. They should be just as eligible for the informal world first competition. Mercs should be on the table for it too. You should be free to find interesting mechanics that bypass raids and you should get recognition for that. You want to make base dungeons a codified competition where some people are playing by the rules and some don't even know the rules exist.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 07:43 PM
My argument is that by default if world first is a serious tracked competition to the point where it is a tournament. Everyone who want to level Mercs instead of a primary class, and everyone with RL, when the game first releases is forced to turn off their buff they've never used. Put aside their Mercs they want to play and try to grind world firsts. This is detrimental in my opinion to those people. Raid leaders have one area they excell. Raids. They should be just as eligible for the informal world first competition. Mercs should be on the table for it too. You should be free to find interesting mechanics that bypass raids and you should get recognition for that. You want to make base dungeons a codified competition where some people are playing by the rules and some don't even know the rules exist.
This is the problem I have with it too.

Kietay
07-11-2013, 08:19 PM
Everything should always be fair game. If the private community wants to waste time keeping track of "world first without bonuses in PvE" then they are free to do that. Real adventurers will beat it, and move on!

ShadowTycho
07-11-2013, 08:21 PM
am i missing something or is this about making world first at a raid a tournament competition?
because world first is world first, regardless of how you do it. which is kind of the point.
you have every tool you can get, you might not have every tool there is but nobody probably does(completing all pve content in a MMO is a legendary feat all its own most of the time).
so everyone tries with what they got and the best man wins.

even if the thing you choose to track and reward is the first person to beat the raid without a mercenary and no account bound bonuses active... if i got there a hour before that world first its not really the world first is it? its just the top of the leader board, which is nice but its not world first.

if you are talking about leveling the playing field for world first you cant simply restrict the competition because then the competition will simply not use the system and make one to track the real world first. the best you can do is offer the raid lead buff as a temporary purchasable buff. That cheapens the raid lead buff, and it only band aids the problem but restricting what counts as a world first dosen't work at all.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 09:17 PM
Sorry, I must have missed this amongst the other 9,000 characters...


The issue here is if you call world first a tournament then you by default turn off raid leader for people, and make it a liability when a dungeon is first released to not use it just in case you get lucky the first few times. It's wrongheaded and unnecessary when the same goals can be accomplished in other much less intrusive ways.My argument is that by default if world first is a serious tracked competition to the point where it is a tournament. Everyone who want to level Mercs instead of a primary class, and everyone with RL, when the game first releases is forced to turn off their buff they've never used. Put aside their Mercs they want to play and try to grind world firsts. This is detrimental in my opinion to those people. Raid leaders have one area they excell. Raids. They should be just as eligible for the informal world first competition. Mercs should be on the table for it too. You should be free to find interesting mechanics that bypass raids and you should get recognition for that. You want to make base dungeons a codified competition where some people are playing by the rules and some don't even know the rules exist.
I suppose it could turn out that way, where you want to turn off RL and mercs even for your first runs, but if the raids are so easy that you're worried about beating them on the first go then Hex PVE has far bigger problems than whether or not someone's getting slighted by buffs turned off. Indeed, if it's that easy, then everyone can just breeze through the whole game in a few days and RL is basically worthless because no one needs it. This seems like a scenario that none of us wants to live in, especially Raid Leaders.

If, on the other hand, raids are as hard as they should be and as hard as CZE has advertised, then you should have no worry about "accidentally" beating it on your first run, and in such a scenario you get what Meldryn talked about, which is that RL becomes quite powerful as a practice tool for learning the raid's mechanics faster than you could otherwise do. It keeps you alive to gather more information. See quote below.

Even with this restricted definition the RL buff is a huge advantage for competitive raiding. Here's why. If the "tournament" modes are sufficiently hard, the very high end competitive teams will practice strategies and deck builds against the "non-tournament" modes. In this scenario, RL is still a much sought after buff, because it allows the team to survive much longer in the encounter. This is actually the key to high level raiding, because the acquisition of more information about the encounter is how you develop the strategies that will succeed. In this capacity, the RL bonus acts very similarly to the DC and GL bonuses in that it increases time efficiency without altering the rules of the tournament event.

Does that make sense?

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 09:23 PM
It's not about it being easy, it's about it incentivizing the wrong things and penalizing people for playing with what they have in a very shadowy and not clear way.

Someone may world first with a merc, and have no idea why it didn't count. You're trying to put all these additional baggages on something that can be handled by the community.

It's unnecessarily disruptive. His comment makes perfect sense and i agree with it entirely, the key is it has a "tournament mode" That's what I'm evangelizing for.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 09:33 PM
It's not about it being easy, it's about it incentivizing the wrong things and penalizing people for playing with what they have in a very shadowy and not clear way.

Someone may world first with a merc, and have no idea why it didn't count. You're trying to put all these additional baggages on something that can be handled by the community.

It's unnecessarily disruptive. His comment makes perfect sense and i agree with it entirely, the key is it has a "tournament mode" That's what I'm evangelizing for.
In your example, they would know why because there'd be a prompt before they start. In the proposal, item 3 is: "When a group/individual runs a raid/dungeon that has spots left in a competitive no-exclusives list, prompt them if they want to remove their account-bound stuff and attempt to join the list." Also, even if they go ahead with their account-bound stuff, they'll still get recognition on the list, but they'll have an "I used account-bound stuff" flag next to their name.

We're almost agreeing with each other, I can feel it. Let me know what else I need to answer and/or change.

EDIT:
I'll be gone for four days, starting more or less right now, so don't expect a quick response.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 09:39 PM
The primary motivation is to help define what areas of the game will be competitive and make sure those areas have a level playing field. I really don't care if you call those competitive areas a "tournament" or an "eggplant" or any other name you like; it is what it is no matter what you call it. Also, it is not just Raid Leader, it is all account-bound bonuses. If you think this is all about Raid Leader, then you need to go re-read the proposal in post 133 (link).


It sure sounds like you're arguing in favor of what's already in the proposal in post 133 (link). (Avoiding the word "tournament" doesn't really change anything about the proposal. I'm willing to change the wording if that's all you need in order to agree with the proposal.) If so, have we've finally reached agreement?


Tournament = Competition
Competition != Tournament

If you change the name from tournament to "eggplant" then the RL buff would apply because the RL buff can not be used during a tournament, but it can be used if people decide to play with the "eggplant" rule set created by the players.

This is the main driving force behind people trying to make a competition into a tournament.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 09:50 PM
am i missing something or is this about making world first at a raid a tournament competition?
because world first is world first, regardless of how you do it. which is kind of the point.
you have every tool you can get, you might not have every tool there is but nobody probably does(completing all pve content in a MMO is a legendary feat all its own most of the time).
so everyone tries with what they got and the best man wins.


The reason people are championing the idea of World Firsts as a tournament is the wording of the Raid Leader buff from the kick starter. The Raid Leader buff can not be used in a PvE tournament. So some people think if they call something long enough a tournament, people will agree with them that it is, regardless if it is true or not.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 09:56 PM
Tournament = Competition
Competition != Tournament

If you change the name from tournament to "eggplant" then the RL buff would apply because the RL buff can not be used during a tournament, but it can be used if people decide to play with the "eggplant" rule set created by the players.

This is the main driving force behind people trying to make a competition into a tournament.

exactly! I'll be happy to use all my exclusive goodness under the eggplant rule set.

Yoss
07-11-2013, 10:00 PM
Tournament = Competition
Competition != Tournament

If you change the name from tournament to "eggplant" then the RL buff would apply because the RL buff can not be used during a tournament, but it can be used if people decide to play with the "eggplant" rule set created by the players.

This is the main driving force behind people trying to make a competition into a tournament.
The reason I don't care what you call it is that the argument for parity of internal constraints during competition still holds regardless of whatever lawyering someone wants to do about Raid Leaders. It's not about Raid Leaders in particular, even though that is the most obvious in its class; it is about the whole class of objects I refer to as "account-bound stuff". Competition must have parity of internal constraints, which, among other things we take for granted, means that all account-bound stuff needs to be blocked from competition. That conclusion has nothing to do with whatever definitions you want to use or not use for the word "tournament" as an attempt to escape the vise of logic. If you do not like my conclusion, your only recourse (besides trolling or becoming otherwise useless) is to figure out which of my propositions or logical steps is in error. If you have a refutation for one of my propositions or for the logic of my arguments, please bring it up. Otherwise, the manner in which you define "tournament" will not matter, because my conclusion (in bold above) will remain.

Gwaer
07-11-2013, 10:16 PM
All account bound things do not need to be blocked from competition yoss, they need to be blocked from official tournament structures. Competition and official tournaments are very different beasts.

Moreover the raid leader buff is not all powerful, it is an advantage, but it is not destabilizing. At least it doesn't seem to be. If it turns out that all world firsts are 3x raid leader groups, then sure I could at that point understand people getting additional prestige from doing it without the buffs. That talk about lists and warnings and blah blah, that's ridiculous. Here's what that is going to say, translated into how it feels. "Yo, dude that cool merc you are planning on leveling and using in PVE is not actually condoned for use, anything you accomplish will not count. Same for you RL jerks, turn off your crap". There can be tournaments you have to go out of your way to enter that pop up pretty regularly that say that, but just normal pve... That. Is. Stupid. Also, unnecessary. There have been 5 people who agree on this point recently. 6 if you count kietay, which I do not. I suggest you step away and do some thinking on how you would feel if someone told you your brand new toys that you paid to play with were not legal even in normal friendly competitions. It's like you're being punished for having them. Tournaments are perfectly understandable, ban lists there are common. Specific deck rules are common, not when you're just doing a dungeon.

Hell, your level playing field crap totally breaks down even in wow. There's equipment that people have from previous expansions that give a speed boost in the run up to world first in a dungeon, there's foreknowledge of the dungeons in some cases, we had people who had access to the dungeon designs in our guild. It's never 100% fair, and in something that is solely prestigious, like being the first to win a raid. That's okay. That's why we have tournaments in the first place, to level the play field as much as possible.

Gorgol
07-11-2013, 10:24 PM
All account bound things do not need to be blocked from competition yoss, they need to be blocked from official tournament structures. Competition and official tournaments are very different beasts.
I think though what he is saying is World First will be an officially sanctioned opt-in competition. Since this is what I believe to be the case, his argument stands. This also means if you don't opt-in but still clear a raid first even without "account-bound exclusives" then it is invalid and will not be recognized officially. If you do opt-in to this sanctioned event then you are bound by the official rules of said competition. In this particular case (World First) that means RL is off and mercenaries are off. If you happen to own every card and equipment (producers) that is allowed since it is an external, not internal constraint. Let me know if I missed anything or am wrong.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 10:40 PM
The reason I don't care what you call it is that the argument for parity of internal constraints during competition still holds regardless of whatever lawyering someone wants to do about Raid Leaders. It's not about Raid Leaders in particular, even though that is the most obvious in its class; it is about the whole class of objects I refer to as "account-bound stuff". Competition must have parity of internal constraints, which, among other things we take for granted, means that all account-bound stuff needs to be blocked from competition. That conclusion has nothing to do with whatever definitions you want to use or not use for the word "tournament" as an attempt to escape the vise of logic. If you do not like my conclusion, your only recourse (besides trolling or becoming otherwise useless) is to figure out which of my propositions or logical steps is in error. If you have a refutation for one of my propositions or for the logic of my arguments, please bring it up. Otherwise, the manner in which you define "tournament" will not matter, because my conclusion (in bold above) will remain.

You may not care what a competition is called; however, Cryptozoic does because of how they worded the Raid Leader buff. Cryptozoic has to allow the Raid Leader buff in competitions that are not a tournament. Anything less would be bait and switch (ie: illegal).

As funny as it may sound to you Yoss, I do agree in the principal of what you are saying. And I have never stated otherwise.

I want tournaments to be about skill (as much as skill can be used in a system with random elements) and not about who purchased what perks to make the win easier.

I believe Cryptozoic will create PvE tournaments (On release or after) with rules to prevent the "Pay to Win" atmosphere we all do not want to happen. I do not think this will include items that happen in the "open world" like achievements (tracked or not by Cryptozoic), speed runs, etc. The reason I think this is because they are not tournaments, but they are a competition to complete first.

Evil-Lite
07-11-2013, 10:41 PM
All account bound things do not need to be blocked from competition yoss, they need to be blocked from official tournament structures. Competition and official tournaments are very different beasts.


I could not agree more.

AstaSyneri
07-11-2013, 11:57 PM
I heartily agree with Gwaer and Evil-Lite.


Moreover the raid leader buff is not all powerful, it is an advantage, but it is not destabilizing. At least it doesn't seem to be. If it turns out that all world firsts are 3x raid leader groups, then sure I could at that point understand people getting additional prestige from doing it without the buffs. That talk about lists and warnings and blah blah, that's ridiculous. Here's what that is going to say, translated into how it feels. "Yo, dude that cool merc you are planning on leveling and using in PVE is not actually condoned for use, anything you accomplish will not count. Same for you RL jerks, turn off your crap". [..] That. Is. Stupid. Also, unnecessary. There have been 5 people who agree on this point recently. [..] I suggest you step away and do some thinking on how you would feel if someone told you your brand new toys that you paid to play with were not legal even in normal friendly competitions. It's like you're being punished for having them. Tournaments are perfectly understandable, ban lists there are common. Specific deck rules are common, not when you're just doing a dungeon.

A more or less level playing field is fine in tournament PvP play. In PvE we (with that I mean specifically my guild) we want to embrace the challenge and beat the raids - using all the tools in the shed. It's basically what the guild is for (not necessarily for World Firsts - most of us have a lot of RL constraints - Real Life that is ;-)). And we have attracted 30+ Raid Leaders for it.

Yes, I imagine we'd feel cheated if we beat a raid first in the world (not very likely, but it could happen) and were told it doesn't count.

The Raid Leader benefit is not an "automatic win". It's main benefit is that you basically get a few free mulligans. Yes, it can be significant, but it won't help you at all if you suck at playing the game. Times three.

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 12:10 AM
Competition must have parity of internal constraints, which, among other things we take for granted, means that all account-bound stuff needs to be blocked from competition.
See i don't think this holds true for pve, at least not for world firsts.
part of the experience of pve is using every facet of what you have to fight something you couldn't beat if you didn't leverage your experience like that.
raids are by their very nature unfair fights, its kinda the point.
If it turns out only triple raid lead bonus groups get world firsts Ill reconsider, but i really think it will be the people who have the largest support network and most free time to attack these problems will tend to get world firsts.

Tenzing Norgay and Edmun Hillary were the first to summit Everest because they got to the top first, not because they did it obeying some arcane rule structure. Yeah they used oxygen, and no one else had been able to do that before them and it gave them a huge advantage... they still did it first so it dose not matter that they used stuff others did not have access too.

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:24 AM
Tenzing Norgay and Edmun Hillary were the first to summit Everest because they got to the top first, not because they did it obeying some arcane rule structure. Yeah they used oxygen, and no one else had been able to do that before them and it gave them a huge advantage... they still did it first so it dose not matter that they used stuff others did not have access too.
They got "First to summit Everest with external help" therefore it is not recognized officially by the Everest Summit Committee.

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 12:33 AM
They got "First to summit Everest with external help" therefore it is not recognized officially by the Everest Summit Committee.

and that is why it is silly.
PVE is player versus environment, literally any level of difficulty can be crafted and put in your way. the only time completion 'doesn't count' is if the creator made a mistake and the encounter is bugged or you found a clear exploit and did not report it.
in a pve encounter anything about any of the facts of the game is up for grabs. maybe you don't get troops. maybe you can only win by healing your opponent to 100 health.. ect. maybe you dont get a hand and play with the top card of your deck. you step over that threshold and whatever the rules are there you deal with them, with every tool those rules let you use.

parity of internal constraints, have little or nothing to do with it. everyone fights the new challenge and everyone tries their best with what they have.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 01:05 AM
Everything should always be fair game. If the private community wants to waste time keeping track of "world first without bonuses in PvE" then they are free to do that. Real adventurers will beat it, and move on!

Everything should always be fair game. Is the RL bonus fair game?


This is detrimental in my opinion to those people. Raid leaders have one area they excell. Raids. They should be just as eligible for the informal world first competition. Mercs should be on the table for it too. You should be free to find interesting mechanics that bypass raids and you should get recognition for that. You want to make base dungeons a codified competition where some people are playing by the rules and some don't even know the rules exist.

Nothing would stop Raid Leaders from competing in the informal world first competition. The discussion is whether or not they should be allowed to use performance enhancing stuff that others are not allowed to use.


am i missing something or is this about making world first at a raid a tournament competition?
because world first is world first, regardless of how you do it. which is kind of the point.
you have every tool you can get, you might not have every tool there is but nobody probably does(completing all pve content in a MMO is a legendary feat all its own most of the time).
so everyone tries with what they got and the best man wins.

even if the thing you choose to track and reward is the first person to beat the raid without a mercenary and no account bound bonuses active... if i got there a hour before that world first its not really the world first is it? its just the top of the leader board, which is nice but its not world first.

if you are talking about leveling the playing field for world first you cant simply restrict the competition because then the competition will simply not use the system and make one to track the real world first. the best you can do is offer the raid lead buff as a temporary purchasable buff. That cheapens the raid lead buff, and it only band aids the problem but restricting what counts as a world first dosen't work at all.


Tournament = Competition
Competition != Tournament

If you change the name from tournament to "eggplant" then the RL buff would apply because the RL buff can not be used during a tournament, but it can be used if people decide to play with the "eggplant" rule set created by the players.

This is the main driving force behind people trying to make a competition into a tournament.


The reason people are championing the idea of World Firsts as a tournament is the wording of the Raid Leader buff from the kick starter. The Raid Leader buff can not be used in a PvE tournament. So some people think if they call something long enough a tournament, people will agree with them that it is, regardless if it is true or not.


No, I'm not making a statement of opinion, I'm making a statement of linguistic fact. What you're describing cannot be shoehorned into the definition of a tournament. Here's an example from wikipedia, and merriam-webster for your perusal.....

If we go by the definitions provided in the last mentioned post, the "informal world first competition" fits under the definition of a tournament.

Also, is a world record a world record regardless of how many unallowed performance enhancing drugs you were using?


See i don't think this holds true for pve, at least not for world firsts.
part of the experience of pve is using every facet of what you have to fight something you couldn't beat if you didn't leverage your experience like that.
raids are by their very nature unfair fights, its kinda the point.
If it turns out only triple raid lead bonus groups get world firsts Ill reconsider, but i really think it will be the people who have the largest support network and most free time to attack these problems will tend to get world firsts.

Tenzing Norgay and Edmun Hillary were the first to summit Everest because they got to the top first, not because they did it obeying some arcane rule structure. Yeah they used oxygen, and no one else had been able to do that before them and it gave them a huge advantage... they still did it first so it dose not matter that they used stuff others did not have access too.
Tenzing Norgay and Edmun Hillary did summit Everest first because they got to the top first by climbing. There are only impartial rules in climbing. Everybody can use oxygen. There isn't a list of people who are allowed to use oxygen during climbing.

Do you think the rest of the world would've accepted their claim of climbing it first if they would've travelled to the 75% mark by helicopter? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying using the Raid Leader buff is like jumping 75% into the fight. We can reduce this to 5% if you like. They still didn't climb the entire mountain if they partially traveled by helicopter.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 01:09 AM
...See, comparing RL buff, and mercs that CZE adds to the game for people to use to illegal drugs is exactly why this approach is so wrongheaded. I'm absolutely certain that CZE won't be implementing this vision of every raid is a tournament ridiculousness. I am just discussing it hoping that you guys can come around and not be upset when it isn't implemented.

Kietay
07-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Everything should always be fair game. Is the RL bonus fair game?


Yes it is. Especially because I have it and will be the world first in every raid forever.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 01:18 AM
...See, comparing RL buff, and mercs that CZE adds to the game for people to use to illegal drugs is exactly why this approach is so wrongheaded. I'm absolutely certain that CZE won't be implementing this vision of every raid is a tournament ridiculousness. I am just discussing it hoping that you guys can come around and not be upset when it isn't implemented.

Why would I be upset when I'm also pretty much certain that RL bonus will be allowed for world firsts?


Yes it is. Especially because I have it and will be the world first in every raid forever.

Okay, so you would say that having Arsenal start with 1 goal in every match they ever play be fair because they invested a lot into the Premier League? Or is that not fair because you don't have it?

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 01:28 AM
Do you think the rest of the world would've accepted their claim of climbing it first if they would've travelled to the 75% mark by helicopter? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying using the Raid Leader buff is like jumping 75% into the fight. We can reduce this to 5% if you like. They still didn't climb the entire mountain if they partially traveled by helicopter.
in my experience this does not matter to a pve community.
not only will the person who started at 75% be allowed to claim the title of first, people who say they shouldn't will be called scrubs and people who propose starting at the bottom of the mountain will be told they are doing it wrong.

First to the top of the mountain is first to the top of the mountain, saying someone got their first because they got a head start does not make them any less first.
Will the fact that their is a buff unavailable to most prevent a hardcore raiding scene from forming? i hope not, and if Cryptozoic thinks so they are welcome to change the rules of the game to minimize the advantage that raid lead offers by offering the buff temporarily for gold( thus making it a time investment).

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 01:31 AM
Why would I be upset when I'm also pretty much certain that RL bonus will be allowed for world firsts?
I very much hope that my guildie asks about it on Saturday when he interviews Cory.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 01:31 AM
...or by just forming codified pve tournament areas with specific limits. Something someone has to actually seek out rather than just be the default way to play. Hard core people can build a raiding scene based on those. Heck I'd be taking part in that. It just shouldn't be a part of the core basic pve areas.

Kietay
07-12-2013, 01:53 AM
Why would I be upset when I'm also pretty much certain that RL bonus will be allowed for world firsts?



Okay, so you would say that having Arsenal start with 1 goal in every match they ever play be fair because they invested a lot into the Premier League? Or is that not fair because you don't have it?

I dont even know what Arsenal is. But I have a feeling that what you said is silly.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 02:07 AM
...or by just forming codified pve tournament areas with specific limits. Something someone has to actually seek out rather than just be the default way to play. Hard core people can build a raiding scene based on those. Heck I'd be taking part in that. It just shouldn't be a part of the core basic pve areas.

So lets adopt the codified pve tournament areas with specific limits suggestion. Would it be okay if CZE released new raids in only the codified pve tournament format until they have been beaten? This would essentially be how raids work currently in the other genres. The raids are hard until they are beaten, then they nerf them into oblivion / buff the players to ease the content.


I dont even know what Arsenal is. But I have a feeling that what you said is silly.

Its a football team. What I said was about as silly as what you said.

jaxsonbatemanhex
07-12-2013, 03:08 AM
I'm surprised this thread has still been going.

I'm someone that will be going for world firsts. Now, if RL buff and cheesy-as-anything decks are allowed for world firsts, you can bet I'll be using them. Going for the peak of competition requires you to be as competitive as possible, even if that means using legal things that other players don't have access to.

Now, if either the unofficial or official world firsts don't allow the RL buff, I won't use it - though if they have differing rules, I'll probably go for official's rules before unofficial's rules, then do the other after if it's still available.

Evil-Lite
07-12-2013, 07:02 AM
If we go by the definitions provided in the last mentioned post, the "informal world first competition" fits under the definition of a tournament.

It is informal so not run by Cryptozoic. People can do what ever they want (or the community wants) for competitions and how they keep track of it.

Still not technically a tournament, but that is irrelevant since it is not organized by Cryptozoic.



Also, is a world record a world record regardless of how many unallowed performance enhancing drugs you were using?

Since when is the RL buff not-allowed (much less a drug) in non-tournament PvE?

Also, a world record is not a tournament. You do not hold a tournament to get into the Guinness Book of World Records (well unless you are attempting a record that deals with tournaments).



Tenzing Norgay and Edmun Hillary did summit Everest first because they got to the top first by climbing. There are only impartial rules in climbing. Everybody can use oxygen. There isn't a list of people who are allowed to use oxygen during climbing.


What about Messner and Habeler who completed the climb without using oxygen? Does that diminish the accomplishments of the first people to climb Everest?

Avedecus
07-12-2013, 08:59 AM
What about Messner and Habeler who completed the climb without using oxygen? Does that diminish the accomplishments of the first people to climb Everest?

Strictly speaking, yes it does.

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 09:35 AM
Strictly speaking, yes it does.

no it dosen't, the only reason they were able to do what they did is because of the scouted paths up the mountain available from those whom went before.
could they have done it without the stable base camps fist founded by Hillary? probability not.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 11:45 AM
It is informal so not run by Cryptozoic. People can do what ever they want (or the community wants) for competitions and how they keep track of it.

Still not technically a tournament, but that is irrelevant since it is not organized by Cryptozoic.
Still not technically a tournament according to what definition?


Since when is the RL buff not-allowed (much less a drug) in non-tournament PvE?

Also, a world record is not a tournament. You do not hold a tournament to get into the Guinness Book of World Records (well unless you are attempting a record that deals with tournaments).

Did I say the RL buff was not-allowed in non-tournament PvE? Don't seem to recollect that. Anyway as far as I know the RL buff is still going to be allowed in non-tournament PvE.

The question was not whether or not the world record was a tournament. The question was whether or not a world record is a world record if unallowed performance enhancing drugs were involved. Is it suddenly a legitimate world record if a couple of people pay Guinness Book of World Records so that they are allowed to use anything to enhance their performance?


What about Messner and Habeler who completed the climb without using oxygen? Does that diminish the accomplishments of the first people to climb Everest?
Is it a bigger accomplishment to jump 6 feet high with only 1 leg compared to 2 legs? Yes.
Were they allowed to use oxygen but chose not to? Yes.
Is any party of 3 allowed to use an RL bonus to gain an additional card in their opening hand? No.

There is a difference between opting out of something you are allowed to do and not being allowed to do something others are.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 11:50 AM
Anyone could have potentially bought a raid leader there were leftovers after the KS, Also, any party of three could include a RL, sure. It's also an effect sanctioned and created by CZE, if the MLB made a drug for people to take, and they took it, they couldn't then exclude the people that took that drug. RL will be a thing, world first will not be a tournament, the community can treat people that use mercs and RL to get them however the community treats those people. If you want a more fairly balanced competition go participate in an actual PVE Tournament.

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:21 PM
Anyone could have potentially bought a raid leader there were leftovers after the KS, Also, any party of three could include a RL, sure. It's also an effect sanctioned and created by CZE, if the MLB made a drug for people to take, and they took it, they couldn't then exclude the people that took that drug. RL will be a thing, world first will not be a tournament, the community can treat people that use mercs and RL to get them however the community treats those people. If you want a more fairly balanced competition go participate in an actual PVE Tournament.
The main point is that they WANT World-first to be a officially sanctioned competition that has set rules. They don't want it just to be a community thing. If they can get CZE to officially sanction a race/competition for World-first, then they can exclude all the non-equal components and make it fair to everyone who enters. I don't see what's wrong with that. You keep saying it won't be a tournament bla bla bla. You don't KNOW that CZE won't set up something like that though. You CAN'T know, unless you work for CZE. Unless I am misunderstanding their entire point, in which case I side with you because you're right, if its not an official thing, you can't force people to not use whatever they want.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 12:21 PM
Anyone could have potentially bought a raid leader there were leftovers after the KS, Also, any party of three could include a RL, sure. It's also an effect sanctioned and created by CZE, if the MLB made a drug for people to take, and they took it, they couldn't then exclude the people that took that drug. RL will be a thing, world first will not be a tournament, the community can treat people that use mercs and RL to get them however the community treats those people. If you want a more fairly balanced competition go participate in an actual PVE Tournament.

Even a party of 3 non-Raid Leaders?
Did MLB only allow a certain group of people to use this drug or were everyone allowed to use it?

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:23 PM
Even a party of 3 non-Raid Leaders?
Did MLB only allow a certain group of people to use this drug or were everyone allowed to use it?
Only people who joined MLB before a certain date. After that the drug was not available anymore and could not be used by any future people who joined. However those previous people could continue to use it as they pleased.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 12:32 PM
Any party could include a RL. If you want to create a party that does not include one, you're free to do so as well? So, any party could, or could not include a raid leader, as per the wishes of the party.

Again, what they want would be terrible for a huge swath of the community, anyone that wants to play with a merc, and anyone that wants to make use of all of the tools available to really beat a raid as fast as possible. Those people should count as well in the question "Who completed this content first" Make a tournament that is in spirit world first for content if you want. But you cannot make all content a tournament just to exclude people from being counted.

You also cannot out of the gate put warning disclaimers on every single zone, saying, if you use this stuff we gave you your stats will not be as valuable as others who do not. In a tournament setting that disclaimer is fine. If you expand that tournament to include any game played on hex servers, RL's, and people who play mercs are just considered second class citizens. You turn their benefits into a penalty, and that's not how it should be.

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:35 PM
You are right that they shouldn't do that, but does it mean they WON'T? No one knows until it is confirmed so this is just round and round we go getting nowhere.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 12:37 PM
Any party could include a RL. If you want to create a party that does not include one, you're free to do so as well? So, any party could, or could not include a raid leader, as per the wishes of the party.

Can I create a party without a Raid Leader and still get the Raid Leader buff?

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:41 PM
Can I create a party without a Raid Leader and still get the Raid Leader buff?
Of course not.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 12:42 PM
Can I create a party without a Raid Leader and still get the Raid Leader buff?
You also can't create a party with funktion, or a dev that knows inside secrets and still get their knowledge to help. There is no level playing field in a competition, there is just a level enough one. Likewise a tournament will also have top tier that you may not have had the opportunity to use. it just constrains the field even further.

RL is not that big of a buff to warrant all of this hatred towards it. Stick to tournaments if you're so afraid of it.

Gorgol
07-12-2013, 12:53 PM
You also can't create a party with funktion, or a dev that knows inside secrets and still get their knowledge to help. There is no level playing field in a competition, there is just a level enough one. Likewise a tournament will also have top tier that you may not have had the opportunity to use. it just constrains the field even further.

RL is not that big of a buff to warrant all of this hatred towards it. Stick to tournaments if you're so afraid of it.
You also can't create a party with producers who have a full playset of every card in the entire game and every equipment in the game at the time of that contents release. Imagine 3 producer raid parties! They will have every answer to whatever the challenge may be. They may or may not be the best skilled but having that huge of an advantage (particularly the first set of raids/dungeons) would be amazing!

I realize this was an "external constraint" as Yoss puts it, but it just shows that its impossible to have equal footing outside of a sanctioned tournament setting.

Gwaer
07-12-2013, 01:05 PM
That's very true. The producers will likely have a better shot at world firsts with their raid leaders turned off than any other group of RL's that doesn't include a producer.

Unhurtable
07-12-2013, 01:08 PM
Of course not.


You also can't create a party with funktion, or a dev that knows inside secrets and still get their knowledge to help. There is no level playing field in a competition, there is just a level enough one. Likewise a tournament will also have top tier that you may not have had the opportunity to use. it just constrains the field even further.

RL is not that big of a buff to warrant all of this hatred towards it. Stick to tournaments if you're so afraid of it.

In other words "any party could include a RL" is false. I can create a party with funktion or a dev that knows inside secrets. There are plenty of competitions with a level playing field.


You also can't create a party with producers who have a full playset of every card in the entire game and every equipment in the game at the time of that contents release. Imagine 3 producer raid parties! They will have every answer to whatever the challenge may be. They may or may not be the best skilled but having that huge of an advantage (particularly the first set of raids/dungeons) would be amazing!

Yes?


I realize this was an "external constraint" as Yoss puts it, but it just shows that its impossible to have equal footing outside of a sanctioned tournament setting.

in Hex.

Evil-Lite
07-12-2013, 04:35 PM
Still not technically a tournament according to what definition?

The Merriam-Webster definition.

"a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition, the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event"

Let us brake the above down for Hex and gaining world firsts.

*** A series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition.
Gaining a world first is not a series of games nor is it a series of contests. So gaining a World First would not fall into this part of the definition. Think of a MTG tournament, you have a series of games played to create the winner. Or you can look at an arm wrestling tournament, you have a series of contests (arm wrestling matches) to determine the victor.

Let us look at World Firsts... You have a single achievement that can only be gained once as the world first, and the award goes to the fastest person. That is a race, not a tournament.

*** the championship play-offs of a league or conference.
Gaining World first achievments is not a championship play off.

*** an invitational event.
This would be the best fit for a world first tournament category and the best place to base the argument around. Hence why I said technically, because you can make an argument for this reason.

A tournament has never been about gaining 1 objective and that is the end. It has always been about a series of games/competitions. This weeds out (not perfectly) people being lucky and winning a single game against people with skill that can win multiple games in a row.



The question was not whether or not the world record was a tournament. The question was whether or not a world record is a world record if unallowed performance enhancing drugs were involved. Is it suddenly a legitimate world record if a couple of people pay Guinness Book of World Records so that they are allowed to use anything to enhance their performance?

If the developers give you the buffs and or items how is it not allowed (Besides the stipulations given to you when the devs gave you the buffs)?

ShadowTycho
07-12-2013, 07:02 PM
If the developers give you the buffs and or items how is it not allowed (Besides the stipulations given to you when the devs gave you the buffs)?
and this is the essence of it
If it is allowed then it will be used and counted.
If Cryptozoic chooses not to allow it, IMHO they need a reason, but it will not be allowed.

People seem to be saying "not everyone has the raid lead buff and it can no longer be aquired, so it should be disallowed."
obviously everyone not having something isn't a reason for it to be disallowed, since i would wager everyone is fine with someone using a play set of legendary cards in a world first attempt.

so really its "People can no longer get this advantage so it is unfair and should be disallowed."
I don't see this happening. I also don't think it is necessary, Since there seems to be some plans in the works to create pve competition aside from world firsts(the alluded to tournaments).

Hexgo
07-15-2013, 08:29 AM
I updated the initial post and highly recommend, that you read the two linked posts before you write a general reply to the matter.
Thank you and have a nice day!

Unhurtable
07-15-2013, 09:08 AM
The Merriam-Webster definition.

"a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition, the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event"

Let us brake the above down for Hex and gaining world firsts.

*** A series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition.
Gaining a world first is not a series of games nor is it a series of contests. So gaining a World First would not fall into this part of the definition. Think of a MTG tournament, you have a series of games played to create the winner. Or you can look at an arm wrestling tournament, you have a series of contests (arm wrestling matches) to determine the victor.

Let us look at World Firsts... You have a single achievement that can only be gained once as the world first, and the award goes to the fastest person. That is a race, not a tournament.


I would argue it is a series of games. Getting the specific "world first on this boss" is not a tournament, but neither is swimming in a pentathlon. There is not going to be one "world first".



*** the championship play-offs of a league or conference.
Gaining World first achievments is not a championship play off.

I would agree.



*** an invitational event.
This would be the best fit for a world first tournament category and the best place to base the argument around. Hence why I said technically, because you can make an argument for this reason.

A tournament has never been about gaining 1 objective and that is the end. It has always been about a series of games/competitions. This weeds out (not perfectly) people being lucky and winning a single game against people with skill that can win multiple games in a row.

Exactly.



If the developers give you the buffs and or items how is it not allowed (Besides the stipulations given to you when the devs gave you the buffs)?
I wouldn't say that buffs and or items given to you by the developers are unallowed unless they specify so.
Is everything a person can do with the buffs and or items allowed?

Evil-Lite
07-15-2013, 10:45 AM
I would argue it is a series of games. Getting the specific "world first on this boss" is not a tournament, but neither is swimming in a pentathlon. There is not going to be one "world first".

There is only one world first per achievement. Each achievement is different from another achievement, even if it is the same type (Speed run, beating the dungeon/raid first, etc). The game may stay the same (Hex) but the rules / format of the game changes from one achievement to another, making the games (achievement) different.

Trying to classify the different achievements as the same game (Hex) would be like trying to classify the different versions of poker as the same game. Ever see anybody try and play 5-card draw at a Texas Hold'em tournament?

That is why I referred to getting a world first as a race instead of a tournament. Race fits better when you are dealing with the winner being the person to complete the objective (achievement) first.




I wouldn't say that buffs and or items given to you by the developers are unallowed unless they specify so.
Is everything a person can do with the buffs and or items allowed?

Not sure I follow your question.

jaxsonbatemanhex
07-15-2013, 10:49 AM
Whether it's allowable or not is going to depend on who is organizing the 'awarding' of the world first. If it's an official one from CZE, and is recognized automatically in game or something similar, then CZE will determine if buffs or items are allowed or not. If it's unofficial, then the person organizing the rankings (probably with community input) will determine if buffs or items will be allowed, or not. Though if it's an unofficial ranking system I imagine there'll be recognition for various types of firsts - outright, without buffs, self-imposed hard modes like highlander and similar.

Yoss
07-17-2013, 03:03 PM
A more or less level playing field is fine in tournament PvP play. In PvE we (with that I mean specifically my guild) we want to embrace the challenge and beat the raids - using all the tools in the shed. It's basically what the guild is for (not necessarily for World Firsts - most of us have a lot of RL constraints - Real Life that is ;-)). And we have attracted 30+ Raid Leaders for it.

Yes, I imagine we'd feel cheated if we beat a raid first in the world (not very likely, but it could happen) and were told it doesn't count.

The Raid Leader benefit is not an "automatic win". It's main benefit is that you basically get a few free mulligans. Yes, it can be significant, but it won't help you at all if you suck at playing the game. Times three.
So you're saying:
1. you care about competing in PVE
2. competitive PVE need not be fair
3. you'd feel cheated if your unfair advantage were taken away
4. since Raid Leader does not auto-win for people who suck at the game (and probably aren't interested in competitive PVE anyway), it's OK that it's an unfair advantage when players of equal skill compete

Did I get that right?


...See, comparing RL buff, and mercs that CZE adds to the game for people to use to illegal drugs is exactly why this approach is so wrongheaded. I'm absolutely certain that CZE won't be implementing this vision of every raid is a tournament ridiculousness. I am just discussing it hoping that you guys can come around and not be upset when it isn't implemented.
Calling a conclusion rediculous does nothing to counter the argument that led to the conclusion. The proposal (linked in the OP) says that every raid is an optional tournament with two modes: one for anything goes World First and one for fair World First. Any group can enter or not enter as they wish. If they want to use all their mercs and/or RL bonuses, they choose the anything goes version.


...or by just forming codified pve tournament areas with specific limits. Something someone has to actually seek out rather than just be the default way to play. Hard core people can build a raiding scene based on those. Heck I'd be taking part in that. It just shouldn't be a part of the core basic pve areas.
The "core basic pve areas" would be anything goes by default. You'd have to opt-in for the (fair) World First.


I'm someone that will be going for world firsts. Now, if RL buff and cheesy-as-anything decks are allowed for world firsts, you can bet I'll be using them. Going for the peak of competition requires you to be as competitive as possible, even if that means using legal things that other players don't have access to.
Here's proof of some of my propositions:
1. competitors will take advantage of everything they can
2. RL is a buff worth having if you're allowed to have it (aka mandatory for bleeding-edge competitive)


Anyone could have potentially bought a raid leader there were leftovers after the KS, Also, any party of three could include a RL, sure. It's also an effect sanctioned and created by CZE... If you want a more fairly balanced competition go participate in an actual PVE Tournament.
So you argue:
1. If you're late to the game, too bad for you. You have to fight normally while the early birds get a half turn head start.
2. If you're late to the game, too bad for you, but if you can convince an early-bird to help you then it won't be so bad. What's that? You wanted to play with your guild mates who aren't early-birds? Oh, I'm sorry, see rule #1 which says: too bad for you.
3. CZE sanctioned and created the RL bonus (and mercs), therefore they must always be allowed, even if they're unfair


Again, what they want would be terrible for a huge swath of the community, anyone that wants to play with a merc, and anyone that wants to make use of all of the tools available to really beat a raid as fast as possible. Those people should count as well in the question "Who completed this content first" Make a tournament that is in spirit world first for content if you want. But you cannot make all content a tournament just to exclude people from being counted.

You also cannot out of the gate put warning disclaimers on every single zone, saying, if you use this stuff we gave you your stats will not be as valuable as others who do not. In a tournament setting that disclaimer is fine. If you expand that tournament to include any game played on hex servers, RL's, and people who play mercs are just considered second class citizens. You turn their benefits into a penalty, and that's not how it should be.
The tournament would be opt-in, no one is being excluded. If anything, "your" side is the one arguing for exclusivity by giving a small percentage of the competitors an unfair advantage.


The Merriam-Webster definition...
I already gave a valid way to treat "my" side of the debate in accordance with this definition (post 293). So in this case, "your" side cannot claim high ground just by using the dictionary, sorry.


If the developers give you the buffs and or items how is it not allowed (Besides the stipulations given to you when the devs gave you the buffs)?
Well, there is a stipulation for Raid Leader (non-tournament PVE), and for mercs there's been no promise made either way other than mercs will "be considered fun, not competitive" (Cory Jones, hextcg.com, July 12). So there you go, there's a very real possibility for CZE to do what is asked in post 133 (which is now linked in the OP) without violating what you just said.


People seem to be saying "not everyone has the raid lead buff and it can no longer be aquired, so it should be disallowed."

...really its "People can no longer get this advantage so it is unfair and should be disallowed."
I don't see this happening. I also don't think it is necessary, Since there seems to be some plans in the works to create pve competition aside from world firsts(the alluded to tournaments).
Actually, Cory confirmed on Saturday that World Firsts will be officially tracked. See my comment below.


Whether it's allowable or not is going to depend on who is organizing the 'awarding' of the world first. If it's an official one from CZE, and is recognized automatically in game or something similar, then CZE will determine if buffs or items are allowed or not.
We have confirmation from Saturday's interview that World First will be an officially recognized achievement. Cory did not comment about whether certain buffs would or would not be available nor did he comment about how exactly World First will be tracked and reported, because that's not what the question was about. (The question was something like "will there be achievements?" and Cory listed off a whole bunch of them.)

Unhurtable
07-18-2013, 04:19 AM
Not sure I follow your question.

If I can abuse an exploit by using a couple of items or buffs, is that exploit still allowed because the developers allowed me to use the items and buffs?

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 05:12 AM
If I can abuse an exploit by using a couple of items or buffs, is that exploit still allowed because the developers allowed me to use the items and buffs?

raid lead buff may not be "fair" and it certainly is no longer obtainable, it might even be posionus to the environment of pve(subject heavy debate as shown here) but is is certainly not an exploit.

abusing exploits for personal gain(like getting a world first) is ban hammer, Cryptozoic has been really clear on this.

this is about weather or not you can use the raid lead buff in pursuit of the endgame goals of what constitutes the typical pve competition(hunting world firsts)
It has been argued at length that if you can use the raid lead buff, it will be a insurmountable advantage to those that have it for claiming those titles and will poison the pool of PVE.

Calling a conclusion ridiculous does nothing to counter the argument that led to the conclusion.
actually calling a argument ridiculous i perfectly reasonable yoss, If your conclusion does not follow from your precepts it really does not matter how factual or true your precepts are. The conclusion of a argument requires the same standards of proof that all the precepts must live up to.



We have confirmation from Saturday's interview that World First will be an officially recognized achievement. Cory did not comment about whether certain buffs would or would not be available nor did he comment about how exactly World First will be tracked and reported, because that's not what the question was about. (The question was something like "will there be achievements?" and Cory listed off a whole bunch of them.)
If they are going to use the World of Warcraft model then anything and everything you have achieved prior to attempting a world first is fair game for attempting that world first.

AstaSyneri
07-18-2013, 05:40 AM
Do we still want to continue to beat that dead horse?


So you're saying:
1. you care about competing in PVE
2. competitive PVE need not be fair
3. you'd feel cheated if your unfair advantage were taken away
4. since Raid Leader does not auto-win for people who suck at the game (and probably aren't interested in competitive PVE anyway), it's OK that it's an unfair advantage when players of equal skill compete

Did I get that right?

No, you didn't ;-).


I care about competing in PvE
Competitive PvE need not be fair
I'd possibly feel cheated if an advantage I sought out and that doesn't represent an illegal exploit were taken away
Since RL is not an auto-win for anybody, it's okay that some have it, and some either recruit somebody who has it or are just good enough players to beat a Raid Challenge without it
Life is not fair - I could complain about people who are younger, smarter, have more time, etc. It's just the way it is: You (legally) stack the odds in your favor and then you try to win as best as you can. That's competition. Look at any pro sport: Things are never fair as in "everybody has the same chances to win". Simply doesn't happen.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 05:50 AM
Do we still want to continue to beat that dead horse?

Life is not fair - I could complain about people who are younger, smarter, have more time, etc. It's just the way it is: You (legally) stack the odds in your favor and then you try to win as best as you can. That's competition. Look at any pro sport: Things are never fair as in "everybody has the same chances to win". Simply doesn't happen.
[/LIST]

Life not being fair is not a good argument for a game that can be, at least to a much greater extent. People often play games to escape the crappy parts of life-like someone having an unfair competitive advantage because they got there first.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 06:54 AM
Life not being fair is not a good argument for a game that can be, at least to a much greater extent. People often play games to escape the crappy parts of life-like someone having an unfair competitive advantage because they got there first.
sure, i can see this and then the problem arises that this is a integral part of a game like this.
I don't see anyone complaining that people have access to all the pvp cards while others do not have that access like that. Certainly that is a huge advantage in deck building.

on this note, fair is not equal. Just because we have different advantages( time, money, experience) does not mean those things are unfair.

In all competition a certain discrepancy is allowed. No one complains that one teams basketball players are too tall.
some people can afford the buy-in at a poker tournament, others need to win a side tournament so they can play in the big tournament. is that equal? no, the poorer player needs to play a lot more and win a lot more(sometimes you get terrible cards and cant turn it around) and the richer player gets to avoid all of that.
is it FAIR? yes.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 07:18 AM
sure, i can see this and then the problem arises that this is a integral part of a game like this.
I don't see anyone complaining that people have access to all the pvp cards while others do not have that access like that. Certainly that is a huge advantage in deck building.

on this note, fair is not equal. Just because we have different advantages( time, money, experience) does not mean those things are unfair.

In all competition a certain discrepancy is allowed. No one complains that one teams basketball players are too tall.
some people can afford the buy-in at a poker tournament, others need to win a side tournament so they can play in the big tournament. is that equal? no, the poorer player needs to play a lot more and win a lot more(sometimes you get terrible cards and cant turn it around) and the richer player gets to avoid all of that.
is it FAIR? yes.

People have complained (or discussed depending on your point of view) people having access to play sets of all cards. In general games try to limit inherent advantages like that but the KS has made it difficult.

I really don't care much about world firsts or who gets them or how-I'll barely be paying attention and certainly won't be getting them myself. I just didn't like the "life isn't fair" argument in reference to a video game and it seemed especially ironic when he said he'd be upset if his advantage was taken away-shouldn't life not being fair apply to that just as much :) I just didn't like the argument-the topic concerns me little though I'm curious how they'll decide.

I did find your philosophical points on fairness and discrepancies interesting (more than the actual topic)-I'll have to think about some of it. It reminded me of the Kurt Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron if you're familiar with it-great story.

Kietay
07-18-2013, 07:47 AM
Im going to have my own 3rd party world first tracker, and it will only recognize people who do have the RL buff because only those people are likely to be serious about the intense competition that is PvE.

Hatts
07-18-2013, 08:01 AM
I did find your philosophical points on fairness and discrepancies interesting (more than the actual topic)-I'll have to think about some of it. It reminded me of the Kurt Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron if you're familiar with it-great story.

I'm in the same boat as you, I don't particularly care about the world first competition, but find some of the fairness arguments interesting. I also love Vonnegut and immediately thought about the Harrison Bergeron short story. Way back near the start of this thread I suggested that everyone needed to visit the handicapper general before participating in a raid, pointing out that banning RL from worlds first competition was the start of a slippery slope in search of fairness. I think my point is proven in the subsequent 300 or so posts as Yoss' decreed consensus now includes some mercenaries. See others posts about the producer tier for ideas further along the slope.

I understand the distinctions people are making about the RL buff and mercenaries not being attainable but I feel the real criteria for success in the worlds first competition is going to be money and time, not what exclusives you have. Knowing that I will not have enough of either to compete I have been keeping an eye on this thread to make sure the proposed implementation doesn't change how the RL bonus works.

Unhurtable
07-18-2013, 08:28 AM
raid lead buff may not be "fair" and it certainly is no longer obtainable, it might even be posionus to the environment of pve(subject heavy debate as shown here) but is is certainly not an exploit.

abusing exploits for personal gain(like getting a world first) is ban hammer, Cryptozoic has been really clear on this.

this is about weather or not you can use the raid lead buff in pursuit of the endgame goals of what constitutes the typical pve competition(hunting world firsts)
It has been argued at length that if you can use the raid lead buff, it will be a insurmountable advantage to those that have it for claiming those titles and will poison the pool of PVE.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling the RL buff an exploit. The notion I was trying to put forth was "just because you are allowed to use X doesn't mean that you are allowed to do Y with X".


actually calling a argument ridiculous i perfectly reasonable yoss, If your conclusion does not follow from your precepts it really does not matter how factual or true your precepts are. The conclusion of a argument requires the same standards of proof that all the precepts must live up to.


Calling an argument ridiculous means nothing. Proving that an argument is ridiculous actually has an impact on the conversation.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 08:28 AM
I'm in the same boat as you, I don't particularly care about the world first competition, but find some of the fairness arguments interesting. I also love Vonnegut and immediately thought about the Harrison Bergeron short story. Way back near the start of this thread I suggested that everyone needed to visit the handicapper general before participating in a raid, pointing out that banning RL from worlds first competition was the start of a slippery slope in search of fairness. I think my point is proven in the subsequent 300 or so posts as Yoss' decreed consensus now includes some mercenaries. See others posts about the producer tier for ideas further along the slope.

I understand the distinctions people are making about the RL buff and mercenaries not being attainable but I feel the real criteria for success in the worlds first competition is going to be money and time, not what exclusives you have. Knowing that I will not have enough of either to compete I have been keeping an eye on this thread to make sure the proposed implementation doesn't change how the RL bonus works.

Sounds like you have the RL bonus? That would make it a more important thread for you. Sometimes I kick myself for getting collector instead but found out about the game less than 24 hours before the KS ended so had to decide fast. Mostly I'm just glad I found out in time.

I have trouble taking these arguments too seriously, it amazes me how important people seem to treat these things. There are things I like and things I don't like, but meh, its not my game and I have more confidence in this team than most to make something I like.

But like Cory said, no decision can please everyone. I can see both sides of the argument, I'm usually pretty good at that. I was more on Yoss' "side" (I hate the concept of sides here-we're all on the same side of wanting the game to be as good as possible) but now I'm not sure. I hadn't considered the slippery slope argument and that's a fair point. I know the idea of having 2 separate world firsts was put forward, one with the "buffs", one without-did this not work for some reason? From a casual standpoint it seemed like a good solution but I haven't read most of the thread. I just hope a solution is made that makes as many people as possible happy and is good for the game. As one of the few that didn't like the exclusive solution I know nothing will make everybody happy.

More generally I'm worried about the KS hurting them later on-they may have been too generous with their rewards due to their expectations of the Kickstarter's success being too low. People have a big sense of entitlement and immediately seeing a list of things they can never have may turn them off. I think there's a good chance the game will be good enough to make any KS backlash irrelevant-at least I hope.

More than anything this has made me want to read Welcome to the Monkey House again. Too many books and other media to read though. I hardly ever reread because there's so much but I think I should.

Hatts
07-18-2013, 09:02 AM
@JustinKP yes I have the RL bonus from buying GK, which is what brought me into this thread. At one point early on in the thread the proposal was that the RL bonus did not apply until you had beaten a raid for the first time, or until the world first list was filled up. Since Yoss started carrying the torch for the OP in this thread he's been accommodating of the casual RL and it has lead to his current proposal (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25983&page=4&p=268607#post268607).

I think most people are fine with 2 separate world first lists, it certainly works for me from a casual standpoint and I haven't heard much complaint from the competitors.

I have the same problem with too much media, I find I read a lot less than I used to. I think I need to get back into the habit of reading before bed and stop watching TV / playing games earlier in the night. I think I will start by stocking my kindle with a bunch of Vonnegut, I got rid of all my paper books a while ago and still haven't replaced a lot of my favorites.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 09:16 AM
I'm in the same boat as you, I don't particularly care about the world first competition, but find some of the fairness arguments interesting...

this is more or less where i weigh in on this thread. I did do "competitive pve" in World of Warcraft from some years and while i never did make it into one of those top guilds that got the world firsts, i earned a server first once and i came to understand exactly what earning a world first entails through going to the local fencing club here where i live( and the US Olympic team happens to train). Being the best in the world at anything takes a lot more then what is being discussed, Its almost always a feat in the truest sense of the word. Its also something i will probably never have the gumption to replicate.

That said i circle back here because i am very interested in the idea of "fairplay" in pve or pvp for that matter.

Vonnegut is a really good interpretation of the problem. I always found the horror of the image of the handicapper general interesting to say the least.

And the counterpoint to what Vonnegut brings up is summed up in context very nicely by the article written somewhere in this thread and linked to in the first post. relink (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25983&page=14&p=268681#post268681)

From what i can understand "Yoss' side" is this:
In order for there to be a competitive pve scene, all barriers to entry need to be non exclusive(this is the thrust of Meldryn's, post i believe)
the Raid lead bonus and certain mercenaries are clearly exclusive
therefore, they needed to be excluded from whatever ranked pve exists to in order for there to be a competitive pve scene, or at the very least segregated.

What i have not seen a cogent argument for is: why is not having all the mercenaries and/or the raid lead bonus a barrier to entry? Without this the conclusion does not follow from the precepts.

Gunna try something and ask politely that if you quote or reply to this post in particular, you lay out your logic for why not having these things is a barrier to entry in the format i used above so it can be clearly understood followed and if need be refuted.

Kslidz
07-18-2013, 09:56 AM
Sorry, I shouldn't have compared to the real world - you're right, this is a game, it's not the real world. Poor choice on my part. I maintain, however, that it is ridiculous (to me) to deny someone the benefits of being an 'early bird' and investing in the game just to make the people who came along later feel that they have a better shot... I guess I'm saying ppl with RL bonuses earned and paid for the edge they have over those who come along later and artificially flattening the playing field by denying them that edge does seem ridiculous to me...



Well then lets have a competitve duel to the death. There are 2 weapons on the shelf one is an laser from the year 3350 AD that is heat seaking and projects a shield to stop all opposing projectiles, and the other is a musket from the civil war that is not well preserved. They are both accessable and unlimited until you learn about them then the future laser is no longer available. Fair right?

I am not claiming RL will have any impact at all but the point of every other post arguing against it, is; Don't let exclusivity dictate competitive play, casual is fine but nothing serious. If let's say every vanilla WoW account gained an extra 1% chance to crit then guess what? It would be unfair, there are plenty of times that the last little bit saves you an hour or 2 of regrinding repairs and the like. If they have anything at all related to achievments or prize support they should not support unfair advantages. (Unfair means that there is nothing in your power to change it, for all intents and purposes it is favortism) I mean imagine if the devs were allowed to compete, and use there powers to create new cards... "Well hey they were supporting the game before you, and anyone could have applied for the job."

These are extremist arguments I admit(where you take your opponents argument and take it to the extremes) and am normally not a fan. However, from what I comprehend, you are not claiming that you think RL won't be a big deal, you are saying you don't care if it did, you have no respect for PvE and think its just tough cookies if it does because it was 'fair game' to get originally. So in that scenario you have to apply stress to the argument in the form of taking it to the limits to understand WHY the argument is made and where you would draw the lines.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 10:04 AM
To continue with your extremist duel position, if you knew the duel was coming and you expended extra effort/money/resources to make sure you got the laser weapon, and them someone came along and desides to change the rules and take out the batteries so you're left with nothing. That's not exactly a good solution either.

People bought RL with the understanding that all multiplayer non tournament PVE was applicable to it. In fact that's all it does. World first achievement hunting is not a tournament. Changing the rules now is punishing people that dropped $250 with the intention of finding every small benefit they could to conquer content first.

Justinkp
07-18-2013, 10:04 AM
@JustinKP yes I have the RL bonus from buying GK, which is what brought me into this thread. At one point early on in the thread the proposal was that the RL bonus did not apply until you had beaten a raid for the first time, or until the world first list was filled up. Since Yoss started carrying the torch for the OP in this thread he's been accommodating of the casual RL and it has lead to his current proposal (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25983&page=4&p=268607#post268607).

I think most people are fine with 2 separate world first lists, it certainly works for me from a casual standpoint and I hadn't heard much complaint from the competitors.

I have the same problem with too much media, I find I read a lot less than I used to. I think I need to get back into the habit of reading before bed and stop watching TV / playing games earlier in the night. I think I will start by stocking my kindle with a bunch of Vonnegut, I got rid of all my paper books a while ago and still haven't replaced a lot of my favorites.

Ooh you got the GK, that's definitely what I would have gotten had it been available. A day more and I probably would have been sniping. Though a week more and I probably would have been a producer, ha, so maybe its for the best. I'm pretty happy with my collector and king (collector was a last minute addition, I decided I really wanted a $250 tier and the ones remaining weren't my favorites-I go back and forth on what I "should" have done).

The current proposal seems reasonable to me, but it doesn't affect me at all and I haven't completely thought it through-hopefully its acceptable to most. The one thing I don't understand is how you track ABE if CZE doesn't provide a mechanism for this. I could see this causing a whole lot of stupid drama as guilds accuse each other of "cheating".

I've managed to cut out all TV (though there are some shows I want to catch up with-especially game of thrones as its my favorite fantasy series of all time and one of the only books/series I've reread-Dune and the Illuminatus trilogy being the others I think-and its looong. In fact I still need to read the last book since I had planned on rereading it a third time befote the last one but didn't get around to it mostly because I lost my second copy of Game of Thrones. Hopefully he starts writing faster since I don't know whats going to happen if the show overtakes him). But I'm even behind on the year's best SF books (I think the short story is the heart of the SF genre), mostly because since owning a comic book store I've read a phenomenal amount of comics, old and new. Sadly its almost a comic golden age with great comics of all genres but its hard to get new customers. Diversifying into magic/gaming (was researching magic distributors when I got an email about Hex-I guess TCGs were in my future) unfortunately our resale license is screwed up so not only did I not get modern masters but may not have any of the new set Friday which is the party for our one year anniversary in our new location and celebration of our first quarterly small print magazine going out (and the book we co-published with Dark Horse was nominated for a Harvey award Monday, yay!)-hopefully I can get a few boxes for not too much money before the city finally processes our paperwork.

To turn this back to Hex, if not the thread, I do hope they do something to support stores-I'd love to run tournaments but the economics is tricky. I guess Cory talked about this last Saturday but I didn't hear-was hoping for a transcript. Not sure what they can realistically do I'm afraid.

Sorry for going off topic-as a Vonnegut fan you may be a more "literary" reader but I guarantee there's some graphic novels you'd love-let me know your other favorite authors and I'd be happy to make suggestions (maybe better to do it over PM so we don't offend the people busy arguing :)

Kslidz
07-18-2013, 11:12 AM
To continue with your extremist duel position, if you knew the duel was coming and you expended extra effort/money/resources to make sure you got the laser weapon, and them someone came along and desides to change the rules and take out the batteries so you're left with nothing. That's not exactly a good solution either.

People bought RL with the understanding that all multiplayer non tournament PVE was applicable to it. In fact that's all it does. World first achievement hunting is not a tournament. Changing the rules now is punishing people that dropped $250 with the intention of finding every small benefit they could to conquer content first.

you are correct there is no fixing it fully now you already created the duel and made the rules you cant backtrack them now, but still, it is not a fair fight. I am not saying what they should or shouldn't do now but the concept of why it was a bad idea.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 11:23 AM
you are correct there is no fixing it fully now you already created the duel and made the rules you cant backtrack them now, but still, it is not a fair fight. I am not saying what they should or shouldn't do now but the concept of why it was a bad idea.

it is a Fair fight, what makes it fair is not changing the rules. it is not equitable however.
i don't see why competition needs to be equitable personally, underdogs and champions are part of the point right?

Yoss
07-18-2013, 03:24 PM
No, you didn't ;-).


I care about competing in PvE
Competitive PvE need not be fair
I'd possibly feel cheated if an advantage I sought out and that doesn't represent an illegal exploit were taken away
Since RL is not an auto-win for anybody, it's okay that some have it, and some either recruit somebody who has it or are just good enough players to beat a Raid Challenge without it
Life is not fair - I could complain about people who are younger, smarter, have more time, etc. It's just the way it is: You (legally) stack the odds in your favor and then you try to win as best as you can. That's competition. Look at any pro sport: Things are never fair as in "everybody has the same chances to win". Simply doesn't happen.

(Justinkp already answered, but I'll break it down further.)

The key item here is 5, which I summarize as "life isn't fair, therefore a competitive game need not be fair". I will certainly grant you your premise of "life isn't fair", but I do not believe you can make the logical jump to your conclusion. The problem lies mostly in the use of the word "fair". We really need to describe better what we mean when we say "fair" in each context. One of the reasons we create games is to create a controlled test of equal internal constraints between entities to determine whose external constraints are superior to the other's. All the things you list as "OK if unfair" are external constraints and I am not claiming that external constraints need to be made equal. As you have pointed out, to do so is futile. I am also not arguing for "equal chances to win" because that depends quite heavily on external constraints like skill at the game or money or time, and besides that argument is self-defeating because it would just reduce all games to a coin flip.

Bascially it boils down to an age-old thing that comes up in politics and lawmaking: "equal results" versus "equal opportunity". I am arguing in favor of equal opportunity, fair treatement under the law. Players of superior skill with time and money to burn can and should excel beyond those less fortunate, but no player should have special privilege when it comes to the mechanics of the competitive areas of the game. (Imbalance outside competition shouldn't bother anyone too much I'd hope.)

@ST and others, Regarding 4-of everything:
That is an external constraint. All those things can be acquired through time and/or money spent. Producers went to the extreme end of the "spend money versus spend time" continuum. I prefer to treat them as having a time advantage similar to (but better than) Guild Leaders and Dungeon Crawlers.

@Gwaer, the "not a tournament" and "bait & switch" arguments:
We've gone over this, see post 293 from back when you brought up the dictionary. We CAN reasonably call World First pursuit "tournament PVE". I'm not saying that's the only possible definition, but it can suit if needed. If we seek to protect World First competition as a fair (equal rules) competition, then we need CZE to invoke their "non-tournament PVE" clause for Raid Leaders in this area. Doing so would not be "changing the rules" for those who bought Raid Leader. The rules are, and have been, that it applies only to "non-tournament PVE". Since that term was never defined, then from a logical and legal standpoint CZE has all Raid Leaders completely at their mercy. There can be no bait and switch when there's a loophole so big that anyone could drive a truck through it; you're getting exactly what was promised. Now, no one here is advocating a complete destruction of Raid Leader value and CZE would be foolish to be so brutal. Indeed, Meldryn has stated firmly (and I agree) that Raid Leader value should be upheld to the standard of Guild Leader and Dungeon Crawler as much as possible. Meldryn's post (page 14, post 134) went into detail about how Raid Leader value is maintained even in a blocked-from-World-First scenario.

@ST, regarding the amount of training it takes to compete:
You're absolutely right. The primary discriminators will be time and skill (and maybe money depending on how things work out), while RL will be a lesser factor. However, when laying out the rules of a game one must be concerned only with hypothetical contestants whose external constraints are 100% equal. It is for those (non-existent in the real world) contestants that a game designer seeks to achieve perfect balance. Then, when unleashed on the real world, you know that the winner won because of superior qualities outside the control of the game. The game will have served its competitive purpose of proving who is "best".


From what i can understand "Yoss' side" is this:
In order for there to be a competitive pve scene, all barriers to entry need to be non exclusive(this is the thrust of Meldryn's, post i believe)
the Raid lead bonus and certain mercenaries are clearly exclusive
therefore, they needed to be excluded from whatever ranked pve exists to in order for there to be a competitive pve scene, or at the very least segregated.

What i have not seen a cogent argument for is: why is not having all the mercenaries and/or the raid lead bonus a barrier to entry? Without this the conclusion does not follow from the precepts.
Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

I won't be surprised if this needs some tweaking before it works right. Let me know. (For the purposes of this argument, "account-bound" is anything you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to.)

EDIT:
Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.




More generally I'm worried about the KS hurting them later on-they may have been too generous with their rewards due to their expectations of the Kickstarter's success being too low. People have a big sense of entitlement and immediately seeing a list of things they can never have may turn them off. I think there's a good chance the game will be good enough to make any KS backlash irrelevant-at least I hope.
It's off topic to this thread, but I'm with you on this. It's one reason why I've been arguing in favor of at least making all the stuff tradeable. Then anyone can buy the exclusives (though they might be expensive if the game is highly successful).

ossuary
07-18-2013, 03:49 PM
All hail Yoss - Knower of Things, Linker of Links, and Keeper of the One True Opinion. ;)

Also, the Vassal of Verbosity. :p

Yoss
07-18-2013, 03:52 PM
All hail Yoss - Knower of Things, Linker of Links, and Keeper of the One True Opinion. ;)

Also, the Vassal of Verbosity. :p
I'm tempted to put this in my sig. :cool:

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 04:00 PM
You can call it a tournament Yoss, no one else with a functioning understanding of the term can. It's world first. It's a race, more-over is a single elimination race. The first person to do it, gets it. Even if it were top three, it's still a race, not a tournament. You can't best of three it, you can't keep a running tally of how quickly from start to finish, it has one criterion, beat the thing before anyone else. That's not a tournament, and never can be one.



A competition involving multiple matches, each involving a subset of the competitors, with the overall tournament winner determined based on the combined results of these individual matches.


Each raid (or dunegon) run is a match. The results are compared and combined to determine rank.


There's where your problem is, each raid or dungeon isn't a match. The only one that counts is the one that finishes. There's no way it is a series, or a set of games, and that is the essence of a tournament, that you so gracefully attempt to will out of being.
We've discussed this to death, what's the point if you're just going to ignore arguments to don't like and continue to espouse your position as the only viable one?

Yoss
07-18-2013, 04:12 PM
When we've dissected the quote below, I will come back to arguing the finer points of what a tournament is or is not. For now, I will allow that you may be right, but if my argument below holds then the definition of "tournament" will no longer matter.

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

I won't be surprised if this needs some tweaking before it works right. Let me know. (For the purposes of this argument, "account-bound" is anything you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to.)

EDIT:
Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 04:21 PM
1.Define internal constraint in a wider way, if we're working from the actual theory of constraints, I can't see how that term is applicable
2. Cory, and every official mention of Mercs from CZE have said they don't classify them as game altering exclusives. But they have a potential to have more impact than RL bonus does. so you need to account for how you're disagreeing with the creators of the game
3. Nothing is equal for all competitors in a game. Some are smarter, some have more experience, this is just like saying life isn't fair, it's inapplicable to the situation. Since you're the only one allowed to play your account I would assume that your specific TCG experience is an account bound exclusive.
4. As discussed much earlier competition doesn't need to be exactly fair and balanced. Just more fair and balanced than fox news.
5. see 2
6. see 1-4

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 04:32 PM
@ST and others, Regarding 4-of everything:
That is an external constraint. All those things can be acquired through time and/or money spent. Producers went to the extreme end of the "spend money versus spend time" continuum. I prefer to treat them as having a time advantage similar to (but better than) Guild Leaders and Dungeon Crawlers.

...

@ST, regarding the amount of training it takes to compete:
You're absolutely right. The primary discriminators will be time and skill (and maybe money depending on how things work out), while RL will be a lesser factor. However, when laying out the rules of a game one must be concerned only with hypothetical contestants whose external constraints are 100% equal. It is for those (non-existent in the real world) contestants that a game designer seeks to achieve perfect balance. Then, when unleashed on the real world, you know that the winner won because of superior qualities outside the control of the game. The game will have served its competitive purpose of proving who is "best".


Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

I won't be surprised if this needs some tweaking before it works right. Let me know. (For the purposes of this argument, "account-bound" is anything you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to.)

so i would argue that precept 2 is not true.
A pve environment is literally the puzzle and challenge that is created separate from the game environment to be enjoyed within itself. it is just the dungeon or raid that compromises content not the rest of the MMO.
My account bound stuff is external to PVE, like my characters, equipment and deck i bring it with my into the pve experience and environment.

I am sorry if im not conveying this very well.
The way i have always looked at it is that when you enter a raid you are exiting the world of the mmo, and stepping into a pve environment that has different rules governing it( i know i have said this before in this thread somewhere)
the whole point of pve is to leverage the resources and skills you have gained in the open world on one side of that threshold to defeat the challenges sitting on the other.

the encounters are inherently fair and equal in this way, even though many different people with widely varying skill sets and resources try them. these things need not be the same to foster a hardcore raiding scene, remember in wow alliance and horde were inherently unequal for the longest time, one having paladins and the other having shamans. both sides had to build raids differently and approach the same encounters differently because they had different buff schemes. It was unequal, but it was FAIR.

PVE should be fair in the way a rubix cube is fair. the individual puzzle is the same for everyone but by no means equal. Some poeple get it more scrambled then others, but the cube obeys the same rules of manipulation for all and mastery of the problem eliminates the sensitivity to the starting position.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 04:41 PM
Now we're moving forward again, thank you.

1.Define internal constraint in a wider way, if we're working from the actual theory of constraints, I can't see how that term is applicable
It is a term I picked up from someone else around here and it seemed to fit. Checking Google for "theory of constraints" it's obvious that it does not apply here. So, your point is taken: I need to define my terms. Both definitions will be implied to only apply to this discussion and will not necessarily be 100% complete (until you need me to refine them).

Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.


2. Cory, and every official mention of Mercs from CZE have said they don't classify them as game altering exclusives. But they have a potential to have more impact than RL bonus does. so you need to account for how you're disagreeing with the creators of the game
It doesn't matter how Cory tries to define "game altering" because it is a clear term with already-established definitions. The mercenaries as currently proposed do alter the game. Furthermore, some of them are exclusive. Therefore, some mercenaries are "game-altering exclusives".


3. Nothing is equal for all competitors in a game. Some are smarter, some have more experience, this is just like saying life isn't fair, it's inapplicable to the situation. Since you're the only one allowed to play your account I would assume that your specific TCG experience is an account bound exclusive.
You are not refuting my premise in Item 3, you are just putting forth two other premises:
(A) "Nothing is equal for all competitors in a game."
(B) "[A player's] specific TCG experience is an account bound exclusive."

Please help me understand where you're going with this. Are you constructing a counterargument? Maybe you're trying to target some other item on my list besides Item 3?


4. As discussed much earlier competition doesn't need to be exactly fair and balanced. Just more fair and balanced than fox news.
This says nothing about Item 4 in my list. Are you perhaps targeting Item 1?

EDIT:
ST, I'm not ignoring you, just responding to Gwaer first.

Gorgol
07-18-2013, 04:41 PM
Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
1. Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
2. The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
3. The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
4. Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
5. The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
6. Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

I won't be surprised if this needs some tweaking before it works right. Let me know. (For the purposes of this argument, "account-bound" is anything you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to.)

I would argue, with enough money (external constraint as you've pointed out previously) everyone could fly to the conventions, and now with the "account-bound" mercenaries being available in chests, that with enough money (external constraint) that everyone has the opportunity to get these and use them.
Do you argue money or time is an internal constraint?

stiii
07-18-2013, 04:43 PM
You keep saying fair and it seems to mean anything is fine.

If raid leader had instead said you skip all parts of the raid other than the final boss would that also be fair? How about half all the values on the raid's cards? Surely at some point the advantage is so massive that it is no longer fair to all the people without this advantage.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 04:56 PM
so i would argue that precept 2 is not true.
A pve environment is literally the puzzle and challenge that is created separate from the game environment to be enjoyed within itself. it is just the dungeon or raid that compromises content not the rest of the MMO.
My account bound stuff is external to PVE, like my characters, equipment and deck i bring it with my into the pve experience and environment.

I am sorry if im not conveying this very well.
The way i have always looked at it is that when you enter a raid you are exiting the world of the mmo, and stepping into a pve environment that has different rules governing it( i know i have said this before in this thread somewhere)
the whole point of pve is to leverage the resources and skills you have gained in the open world on one side of that threshold to defeat the challenges sitting on the other.

the encounters are inherently fair and equal in this way, even though many different people with widely varying skill sets and resources try them. these things need not be the same to foster a hardcore raiding scene, remember in wow alliance and horde were inherently unequal for the longest time, one having paladins and the other having shamans. both sides had to build raids differently and approach the same encounters differently because they had different buff schemes. It was unequal, but it was FAIR.

PVE should be fair in the way a rubix cube is fair. the individual puzzle is the same for everyone but by no means equal. Some poeple get it more scrambled then others, but the cube obeys the same rules of manipulation for all and mastery of the problem eliminates the sensitivity to the starting position.
I think you're arguing that there is a second layer of internal/external involved; that the general game world is "external" to the "internal" world of the raid or dungeon. If we accept that, then you're right: Item 2 becomes external not internal. However, by the definition that Gwaer was kind enough to request from me, anything imposed by the game is "internal" so therefore the general game world cannot be "external". How should I re-word my definitions so that they are more clear?

Yoss
07-18-2013, 05:25 PM
I would argue, with enough money (external constraint as you've pointed out previously) everyone could fly to the conventions, and now with the "account-bound" mercenaries being available in chests, that with enough money (external constraint) that everyone has the opportunity to get these and use them.
Do you argue money or time is an internal constraint?
You've hit upon an important concept there, and it's worth discussing for sure. I do not argue that time or money are internal constraints. By my own definition they are not. The problem in your assertion lies not with the money or available free time. The problem is with the set of objects you refer to as "everyone", which I believe you wish to equate with my set of objects that I refer to as "all potential competitors". However, while the two sets overlap, they are not the same. My set includes, while yours does not, players who join the game after the Kickstarter as well as those who join after HexCon; it covers all Hex players who may at some point wish to compete in a PVE competition that is still in the future relative to when they join the game. For those players, no amount of time or money will allow them to regain parity. Unless we allow for time travel, there is nothing they can do.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 06:27 PM
I think you're arguing that there is a second layer of internal/external involved; that the general game world is "external" to the "internal" world of the raid or dungeon. If we accept that, then you're right: Item 2 becomes external not internal. However, by the definition that Gwaer was kind enough to request from me, anything imposed by the game is "internal" so therefore the general game world cannot be "external". How should I re-word my definitions so that they are more clear?

you just would need to include your reasoning for the deffenition that you have above. if that is sound then your reasoning for the rest of it follows unless you make a paradox or contradiction.

its all well and good to just define it one way, but it dosen't explain why your division of the game world is better or more fitting then mine. after all the whole conversation is about not just dictating things i presume but trying to communicate why you think they are that way. if you just wanted to tell us your opinion i think you did that a while ago :)

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 06:29 PM
I propose that we move forward by throwing out the internal and external constraint terminology altogether. I'm still not clear on it. I think ST hit on a valid point here. Lets try to use your internal/external constraint terminology to describe wow, when horde and alliance each had a class that was unavailable to the other?

In that situation would you be throwing the same argument? Because he has a very valid point "Internal constraints" as you put it were not equal, but raiding between horde and alliance was competitive.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 06:30 PM
@ST:
I somehow knew that would be your rebuttal. So now (in your estimation) it all hangs on my defense of Item 1 and its supporting definitions. That's fair. I'll have to get back to it later; it's dinner time.

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 06:34 PM
Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.

It doesn't matter how Cory tries to define "game altering" because it is a clear term with already-established definitions. The mercenaries as currently proposed do alter the game. Furthermore, some of them are exclusive. Therefore, some mercenaries are "game-altering exclusives".

You are not refuting my premise in Item 3, you are just putting forth two other premises:
(A) "Nothing is equal for all competitors in a game."
(B) "[A player's] specific TCG experience is an account bound exclusive."

Please help me understand where you're going with this. Are you constructing a counterargument? Maybe you're trying to target some other item on my list besides Item 3?

This says nothing about Item 4 in my list. Are you perhaps targeting Item 1?


Much of the issue here is the difficulty with the internal constraint terminology, for example my point #2 which you say it doesn't matter how cory defines game altering, but if it doesn't have any bearing as cory states, then it isn't a constraint at all.

my point refutes your item 3 in that there is no way for me to acquire your or someone elses skills/knowledge in how to effectively tackle TCG raids, so there is no way to perfectly balance the game. If RL is less of a bonus than someone who has any amount of experience with TCG's or going after world firsts, then I contend that it is not a constraint at all, and merely a variance.

Also, item 4 on your list was just drawing conclusions from the first three points. which i did at your item 4 as well.

Yoss
07-18-2013, 06:36 PM
@Gwaer:
I'd be tempted to use the same logic, but it might not hold up because the constraint imposed by faction was the same for all players (mostly?).

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 06:54 PM
It refutes the idea that there is a fundamental problem here with how it is currently set to work. Someone's knowledge plus merc could get them world first cause they had a zany idea, with or without raid leader. There are so many variables, that as long as they are within a certain power level they are not a constraint, but rather a variance like any other, a skill variance, a knowledge variance, etc. Like I said, once the game releases if every single person that gets world first was a RL, and succeeded only because they were a RL (this is tricky, because I think anyone that is really serious about world first achievement hunting will seek out a RL to join their party, just to try to get every possible variance lined up in their favor, they will also do a lot of research on mechanics, potential decks, potential mercs/champions, etc. If there are any other in-game things that could help they will rush to get those done. Being serious about it you look for every little thing you can.

I got a world first myself in wow, it was a lot of work, I used everything I had at my disposal. Including caffeine pills. I might have even used steroids if they would have helped and I had any available. =P

stiii
07-18-2013, 07:09 PM
I think you're arguing that there is a second layer of internal/external involved; that the general game world is "external" to the "internal" world of the raid or dungeon. If we accept that, then you're right: Item 2 becomes external not internal. However, by the definition that Gwaer was kind enough to request from me, anything imposed by the game is "internal" so therefore the general game world cannot be "external". How should I re-word my definitions so that they are more clear?

The issue is that you are asking the impossible. You can never have everything be fair so the question becomes what is and isn't acceptable.

The guy with RL has an edge over people without it and the guy with infinite money to buy new cards has an advantage over those who have to grind out new gear.

Kslidz
07-18-2013, 07:35 PM
it is a Fair fight, what makes it fair is not changing the rules. it is not equitable however.
i don't see why competition needs to be equitable personally, underdogs and champions are part of the point right?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair


first one is the easiest to point to. Free from bias, it is indeed biased to those who lucked out and knew. You may say that it is unfair for a chess champion to play against a unskilled chess player then. However the difference is that knowing about and being able to spend money on a game before another person has nothing to do with what this game is advertised as. TCG comepetitive games are a test of intellect, endurance, deduction, and prediction of opponents thoughts. Simply buying the game a month before I knew is not a reason to have an advantage, as this game is not, INVESTMENT"the game of knowing where to find a good idea." If iy were I would not be debating.

also that is only the first definition of fair if you look at the rest you see that it paints a picture of neither great nor poor but right where it should be, a buff for knowing about the game is not the point of contention between opponents so it should not affect advantages.




and btw
eq·ui·ta·ble (kw-t-bl)
adj.
Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. See Synonyms at FAIR

also a competition is :
A test of skill or ability; a contest

so what is the driving factor to bring me to hexmmotcg?
For me it is the competition of wit and and analysis. I do not wish to test whether or not I am skilled in finding great games before others, it is not a point of contention for me and is not the reason I am here.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 07:37 PM
@ST:
I somehow knew that would be your rebuttal. So now (in your estimation) it all hangs on my defense of Item 1 and its supporting definitions. That's fair. I'll have to get back to it later; it's dinner time.
to be honest, i don't know that fleshing out this bit will make everything incontrovertible, it is a fun exercise however and i'm glad you took me up on it.


The issue is that you are asking the impossible. You can never have everything be fair so the question becomes what is and isn't acceptable.

The guy with RL has an edge over people without it and the guy with infinite money to buy new cards has an advantage over those who have to grind out new gear.
oh i think fair play is one of those intrinsic things where everyone spectating knows which guy is the face and which is the heel.
that said, and risking yoss tearing my stuff apart for posting it here, i belive fair is simply setting up unbiased rules and then not changing them without just cause. things can certainly be fair, they just cant be equal. which is fine equal is boring quickly anyway.

in a perfectly equal match, each player will win half the time.
in a fair match, one player may be better at the game and dominate, which is fine because we find him someone else who dominates and put them in a box and watch while eating snacks... then take the winner and put him in another box with another such winner.

its not random chance that determines who moves between the boxes, but its also not unfair. i wouldn't stand a chance at the chess world championships... and that's fine, its what makes chess competitve and interesting.

stiii
07-18-2013, 07:50 PM
How is giving players who spent more money an advantage creating unbiased rules?

Gwaer
07-18-2013, 07:57 PM
How is a single player experience where the other person isn't even playing against someone without RL it's both of them vs an AI a true competition? The AI doesn't care if someone has RL or not. In tournaments it won't exist, this is all about a stupid achievement.

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 08:03 PM
How is giving players who spent more money an advantage creating unbiased rules?

is being tall in basket ball unfair?

ShadowTycho
07-18-2013, 08:24 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair
first one is the easiest to point to. Free from bias, it is indeed biased to those who lucked out and knew. You may say that it is unfair for a chess champion to play against a unskilled chess player then. However the difference is that knowing about and being able to spend money on a game before another person has nothing to do with what this game is advertised as. TCG comepetitive games are a test of intellect, endurance, deduction, and prediction of opponents thoughts. Simply buying the game a month before I knew is not a reason to have an advantage, as this game is not, INVESTMENT"the game of knowing where to find a good idea." If iy were I would not be debating.
It is perfectly fair for a champion of a sport to defeat those less skilled then him. That's the point of a fair sport. If it was a equal sport then he would have no more a chance of winning then anyone else.

If we are both doing the same encounter, governed by the same rules, then its a fair challenge because of the defention you so kindly linked.
now if i am mowing my lawn with a lawn mower and you have a push mower and you look over on my lawn and say that im cheating because im not doing it the same way as you... that's just silly.

If we both enter the tourney for best kept lawn and one of the rules is no riding lawnmower, then I am cheating.
however if looking over the fence i look you in the eye and yell "race you." before running to my lawnmower, that dosetn matter.
World firsts are the second type of competition. and yeah i get to use my riding lawnmower... but that dosetn matter because the real winner will be the one who just sets his lawn on fire.

also that is only the first definition of fair if you look at the rest you see that it paints a picture of neither great nor poor but right where it should be, a buff for knowing about the game is not the point of contention between opponents so it should not affect advantages.





and btw
eq·ui·ta·ble (kw-t-bl)
adj.
Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. See Synonyms at FAIR
also a competition is :
A test of skill or ability; a contest

all true! and i would have gone back and changed it to equal(like it is in every other one of my posts) but it was quoted and i dont change things after they were quoted.

Unhurtable
07-18-2013, 11:58 PM
You keep saying fair and it seems to mean anything is fine.

If raid leader had instead said you skip all parts of the raid other than the final boss would that also be fair? How about half all the values on the raid's cards? Surely at some point the advantage is so massive that it is no longer fair to all the people without this advantage.

This argument is a bit extreme. The point people are trying to make is that the RL bonus is fair in its current state. If we were to gradually buff the RL bonus, more and more people would find it unfair.


How is a single player experience where the other person isn't even playing against someone without RL it's both of them vs an AI a true competition? The AI doesn't care if someone has RL or not. In tournaments it won't exist, this is all about a stupid achievement.

How is the 100m dash a true competition? The ground doesn't care if someone is allowed to reduce their final time by a second or not.
If its just about a "stupid achievement", then we might as well remove the RL bonus from the issue. Belittling the issue doesn't help either side, because the less important something is the less impact-full all sides will be.


is being tall in basket ball unfair?

No. Are there are rule in basket ball that only some people are allowed to be tall?


The issue is that you are asking the impossible. You can never have everything be fair so the question becomes what is and isn't acceptable.

The guy with RL has an edge over people without it and the guy with infinite money to buy new cards has an advantage over those who have to grind out new gear.

Of course you can have everything be fair. In terms of fair rules, thats pretty easy. Fair match, as in two players of equal skill playing versus each other, that is a bit harder to pull off.


If we are both doing the same encounter, governed by the same rules, then its a fair challenge because of the defention you so kindly linked.
now if i am mowing my lawn with a lawn mower and you have a push mower and you look over on my lawn and say that im cheating because im not doing it the same way as you... that's just silly.

If we both enter the tourney for best kept lawn and one of the rules is no riding lawnmower, then I am cheating.
however if looking over the fence i look you in the eye and yell "race you." before running to my lawnmower, that dosetn matter.
World firsts are the second type of competition. and yeah i get to use my riding lawnmower... but that dosetn matter because the real winner will be the one who just sets his lawn on fire.

also that is only the first definition of fair if you look at the rest you see that it paints a picture of neither great nor poor but right where it should be, a buff for knowing about the game is not the point of contention between opponents so it should not affect advantages..

Yes, this would be more of the second type of competition, that still has unspoken / unwritten rules. The problem with you analogy is that both people are allowed to purchase a lawn mower.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:42 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'll be going for that stupid achievement myself. But the game shouldn't be designed around it. It's just a nice tipping to add.

If the sand in your long jump had any effect on the jump whatsoever,that might have been a valid retort. If the sand offered some resistance, and you had to overcome that resistance by thinking fast or being strong. Or just being fast, or being light, and any of these things could be better than the other, and all of them could be used in conjunction, the sand having a minor affinity towards some people is not really worth altering the entire event. At some point if the sand just refused to block people, sure that's a problem. But we can't judge if that's the case yet.

MoikPEI
07-19-2013, 06:30 AM
Re: fairness in sports. Check out the concept of the Impost in horse-racing, or just Handicapping in general.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 06:54 AM
It is perfectly fair for a champion of a sport to defeat those less skilled then him. That's the point of a fair sport. If it was a equal sport then he would have no more a chance of winning then anyone else.

If we are both doing the same encounter, governed by the same rules, then its a fair challenge because of the defention you so kindly linked.
now if i am mowing my lawn with a lawn mower and you have a push mower and you look over on my lawn and say that im cheating because im not doing it the same way as you... that's just silly.
you obviously did not read the scenarion, It is not that you are willing to spend more money on a legal card than I am (not you specifically but anyone that has RL buff) and I am unwilling, It is that I am not allowed to achieve the same tools you are.

So yes as I said(if you read my post you would have seen it) it IS fair for a chess master to play somone less skilled as the game called chess is about the skill in chess.
However, in a lawn mowing competition that provides lawn mowers(please read this part, again the competition is providing the lawn mowers you cant bring your own) and the competition doesnt start until 4 months, it is unfair to offer a better lawn mower to those that come first, because then the competition is not about lawn mowing when 2 similarlly skilled mowers go head to head as an unfair advantage is given to the one with the better mower.


It is by definition unfair as it is by definition favoring one person by a standard that is NOT part of the competition.




If we both enter the tourney for best kept lawn and one of the rules is no riding lawnmower, then I am cheating.
however if looking over the fence i look you in the eye and yell "race you." before running to my lawnmower, that dosetn matter.
World firsts are the second type of competition. and yeah i get to use my riding lawnmower... but that dosetn matter because the real winner will be the one who just sets his lawn on fire.


None of this is at all relevant to this thread nor anything I have said

No one said someone was cheating, no one said, "If I can't afford a good deck then others shouldn't have access to it."

and no one is talking about non official race, people, on the contrary everyone has pretty much said that if the RL buff doesn't affect scoreboards or anything rated they dont care if they can't get it. People are saying, to further the analogy, if there is a lawn mowing competition where I have to buy a mower to join, I should have access to buying or earning all of the same mowers that other competitors should.

Hatts
07-19-2013, 07:30 AM
Re: fairness in sports. Check out the concept of the Impost in horse-racing, or just Handicapping in general.

Good point, which is why I think the most fair solution for the world first competition is to implement the handicapper general in game. He would analyse your entire group, what cards, equipment, mercs and exclusives you have access to and buff/nerf each member to make everyone an average player. This way skill and luck of the draw is the only determining factor.

@Yoss I think the simplest way to define what you are looking for is that you want to ban everything that is not currently obtainable in game. Everything that is allowed is tradeable and/or obtainable via booster packs, the auction house, or by playing the PvE game (dungeons, raids, vendors etc.) Everything that is not allowed are KS bonuses and mercenaries that are event or time dependant. I think the internal / external constraint definition is clunky and hard for everyone to understand.

Of course I think the best solution is no bans since the time/money you have invested in the game and what time of day the content is released are going to be the overwhelming factors of who completes a raid first.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 08:58 AM
No. Are there are rule in basket ball that only some people are allowed to be tall?

this was my point, people are different and while being taller is an advantage ina highly compettive sport liek basketball it is not a unfair one.

great effort has gone into arguing that fairness is some how dependent on an equality of starting conditions, and my point has been that fairness is dependent on the equality of the contest alone.

you obviously did not read the scenarion, It is not that you are willing to spend more money on a legal card than I am (not you specifically but anyone that has RL buff) and I am unwilling, It is that I am not allowed to achieve the same tools you are.

no one read the scenarion.

I did read the scenario and have referenced it repeatedly in previous posts. The only you could come to the conclusion i havent been reading this thread is if you haven read the thread.


So yes as I said(if you read my post you would have seen it) it IS fair for a chess master to play somone less skilled as the game called chess is about the skill in chess.


It is perfectly fair for a champion of a sport to defeat those less skilled then him. That's the point of a fair sport. If it was a equal sport then he would have no more a chance of winning then anyone else.

we agree on this its not a point and you don't use it as a precept.


However, in a lawn mowing competition that provides lawn mowers(please read this part, again the competition is providing the lawn mowers you cant bring your own) and the competition doesnt start until 4 months, it is unfair to offer a better lawn mower to those that come first, because then the competition is not about lawn mowing when 2 similarlly skilled mowers go head to head as an unfair advantage is given to the one with the better mower.

Again, if i'm quoting your post i'm reading it. Now weather you have made a argument i under stand or agree with are different.
and the competition I set up in my original statement forbade the use of lawnmowers in it. I get my better lawnmower to mow my lawn.
That also means I should be able to mow my lawn faster right?
wrong. either of us could mow the lawn fastest by just burning it down.

This etire thread has been about making the world first competition in raids something different from what it is normally.
what it is normally is the second type of race i reference in my admittedly flawed lawnmower analogy.
there is no judge. there are no formal agreed upon rules beyond 'no cheating'.
this is the wild west portion of the game where you can use what ever pve cards and gear you want.


It is by definition unfair as it is by definition favoring one person by a standard that is NOT part of the competition.

hey now, favoring one person is part of competing, i thought you were fine with world champions competing... how are they not favored in their chosen competition



None of this is at all relevant to this thread nor anything I have said

No one said someone was cheating, no one said, "If I can't afford a good deck then others shouldn't have access to it."

and no one is talking about non official race, people, on the contrary everyone has pretty much said that if the RL buff doesn't affect scoreboards or anything rated they dont care if they can't get it. People are saying, to further the analogy, if there is a lawn mowing competition where I have to buy a mower to join, I should have access to buying or earning all of the same mowers that other competitors should.

what you are saying however is "you cant use something if i do not have access to it."



Good point, which is why I think the most fair solution for the world first competition is to implement the handicapper general in game. He would analyse your entire group, what cards, equipment, mercs and exclusives you have access to and buff/nerf each member to make everyone an average player. This way skill and luck of the draw is the only determining factor.

no, the handicapper general does not make the GAME fair he makes the COMPETITORS equal. I am all for the game being fair, but players should be allowed to be different.



@Yoss I think the simplest way to define what you are looking for is that you want to ban everything that is not currently obtainable in game. Everything that is allowed is tradeable and/or obtainable via booster packs, the auction house, or by playing the PvE game (dungeons, raids, vendors etc.) Everything that is not allowed are KS bonuses and mercenaries that are event or time dependant. I think the internal / external constraint definition is clunky and hard for everyone to understand.

it is a little clunky but it also describes the essential difference between his position and mine.
The argument that they should not be available because they are time dependent is different, and It lets me ask, Why should time dependent things not be allowed only if they are trade-able? Are you arguing that only equipment that is trade-able should be allowed in PVE? traditional MMO PVE literally revolves around untrade-able equipment.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 09:01 AM
No one said someone was cheating, no one said, "If I can't afford a good deck then others shouldn't have access to it."

and no one is talking about non official race, people, on the contrary everyone has pretty much said that if the RL buff doesn't affect scoreboards or anything rated they dont care if they can't get it. People are saying, to further the analogy, if there is a lawn mowing competition where I have to buy a mower to join, I should have access to buying or earning all of the same mowers that other competitors should.

Actially people have said RL is like cheating, and compared it to illegal performance enhancing drugs, and people are talking about a non official 'race' just because an achievement exists for a thing doesn't mean that the thing is an official race, it just means there's a limited time achievement for world first. That does not make it a tournament. Therefore raid leader should apply when going for it. So should Mercs. So should literally anything else you can do to increase your odds that isn't an exploit in their systems.

Hatts
07-19-2013, 10:44 AM
no, the handicapper general does not make the GAME fair he makes the COMPETITORS equal. I am all for the game being fair, but players should be allowed to be different.


it is a little clunky but it also describes the essential difference between his position and mine.
The argument that they should not be available because they are time dependent is different, and It lets me ask, Why should time dependent things not be allowed only if they are trade-able? Are you arguing that only equipment that is trade-able should be allowed in PVE? traditional MMO PVE literally revolves around untrade-able equipment.

Just to clarify a few things, I am on your side in this argument. People are complaining that it's unfair that the competitors aren't equal and no amount of time or money can make them equal. I agree the handicapper general (or making everyone do the raid with the same decks) levels the playing field and makes the competitors equal, but it doesn't give the best competition. Some games (like chess) have an fair and even playing field, so that skill is the only thing that matters. Basketball has an uneven playing field where height is a huge determining factor in your success in the game. Limiting basketball to players of only exactly X height to create an even playing field would make the game much worse. Just because it works in chess or horse racing doesn't make it work in other games / sports / competitions. I don't think we should be applying any restrictions to the world first achievements, I think it's a slippery slope and I don't think it improves the competition.

As for my interpretation of Yoss' viewpoint, it's unfair for anything to be used in competition that can't be currently obtained by a new player. Every indication so far is that all equipment is tradeable, I got into this argument in another thread (or was it this one?) Regardless of whether the equipment is tradeable, if it's obtainable by the player through any in-game means (playing, trading, etc) then it's allowed. If it can't be obtained by a new player because it's no longer available, like the Giant Squirrel and Dinosaur mercenaries will be after year 1, then it shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for event exclusive mercs, KS mercs and the RL bonus since they wouldn't be available to the new player. I'm sure we'll see this category expand as time goes on. If for example there is BoE/BoP equipment that no longer drops, it would be banned as well.

Also to note since I am paraphrasing Yoss' position, he believes everything should be tradeable, which would make everything allowed. It's only because some things are not tradeable that he is having to take this position. The time and money required to get these things is immaterial to his argument.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 11:29 AM
As for my interpretation of Yoss' viewpoint, it's unfair for anything to be used in competition that can't be currently obtained by a new player. Every indication so far is that all equipment is tradeable, I got into this argument in another thread (or was it this one?) Regardless of whether the equipment is tradeable, if it's obtainable by the player through any in-game means (playing, trading, etc) then it's allowed. If it can't be obtained by a new player because it's no longer available, like the Giant Squirrel and Dinosaur mercenaries will be after year 1, then it shouldn't be allowed. Same goes for event exclusive mercs, KS mercs and the RL bonus since they wouldn't be available to the new player. I'm sure we'll see this category expand as time goes on. If for example there is BoE/BoP equipment that no longer drops, it would be banned as well.

Also to note since I am paraphrasing Yoss' position, he believes everything should be tradeable, which would make everything allowed. It's only because some things are not tradeable that he is having to take this position. The time and money required to get these things is immaterial to his argument.
That's just about spot on. Stay tuned for my next novel-length response.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 11:38 AM
Competitive PvE....
That concept is hurting my brain.

If you are speaking in terms of in-game achievements, I don't really see the point.
If you are referring to PvE cards in friendly PvP play, then the limiting factor would be rules set by the players to balance the competition.

For example - say you want to host a wild-wild-west tournament (PvE cards are playable and equipment), You can specifically ban exclusive cards - like exclusive mercenaries and exclusive items like a spectral lotus.

PvE should not be designed to be fair, it should be designed to be fun and challenging. Once you get into using the word 'competitive' you need to distance yourself from the phrase 'PvE'.

With that said, it will be interesting to see how in-house options will be set for the Castle Defense mode, and player ran tournaments.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 11:41 AM
I agree with you Nico, but Yoss is championing turning off RL, and such by default if you want to go after PVE achievements.

If they setup PVE tournaments, then sure, ban stuff, make it as fair as possible, but for achievement hunting you should be able to use whatever you've got.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 11:50 AM
For reference:

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.

I won't be surprised if this needs some tweaking before it works right. Let me know. (For the purposes of this argument, "account-bound" is anything you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to.)

you just would need to include your reasoning for the deffenition that you have above [for Item 1]. if that is sound then your reasoning for the rest of it follows unless you make a paradox or contradiction.

its all well and good to just define it one way, but it dosen't explain why your division of the game world is better or more fitting then mine. after all the whole conversation is about not just dictating things i presume but trying to communicate why you think they are that way. if you just wanted to tell us your opinion i think you did that a while ago :)
So, after reading the last 30ish posts since the one quoted here, I think it is fair to say again that Items 2 through 6 are well established and thus the entire argument hangs on defense of Item 1. Nearly every one of the posts I just read has been on one side or the other of a debate about whether Item 1 is valid. It has also been a recurring theme throughout these 40 pages. To restate as a question and in a simpler (but possibly less accurate) way: Is it necessary for all competitors in a game to be treated equally under the rules of that game?

I'll start with quoting one of the many posts on affirmitive side of the issue. (This is from post 392.)

The key item here is 5, which I summarize as "life isn't fair, therefore a competitive game need not be fair". I will certainly grant you your premise of "life isn't fair", but I do not believe you can make the logical jump to your conclusion. The problem lies mostly in the use of the word "fair". We really need to describe better what we mean when we say "fair" in each context. One of the reasons we create games is to create a controlled test of equal internal constraints between entities to determine whose external constraints are superior to the other's. All the things you list as "OK if unfair" are external constraints and I am not claiming that external constraints need to be made equal. As you have pointed out, to do so is futile. I am also not arguing for "equal chances to win" because that depends quite heavily on external constraints like skill at the game or money or time, and besides that argument is self-defeating because it would just reduce all games to a coin flip.

Bascially it boils down to an age-old thing that comes up in politics and lawmaking: "equal results" versus "equal opportunity". I am arguing in favor of equal opportunity, fair treatement under the law. Players of superior skill with time and money to burn can and should excel beyond those less fortunate, but no player should have special privilege when it comes to the mechanics of the competitive areas of the game. (Imbalance outside competition shouldn't bother anyone too much I'd hope.)

@ST, regarding the amount of training it takes to compete:
You're absolutely right. The primary discriminators will be time and skill (and maybe money depending on how things work out), while RL will be a lesser factor. However, when laying out the rules of a game one must be concerned only with hypothetical contestants whose external constraints are 100% equal. It is for those (non-existent in the real world) contestants that a game designer seeks to achieve perfect balance. Then, when unleashed on the real world, you know that the winner won because of superior qualities outside the control of the game. The game will have served its competitive purpose of proving who is "best".

There are other posts we could dig up throughout this thread that have argued (persauasively, I think) in favor of equal treatment of all players under the rules.


I want to highlight two particular points I found interesting, though they may not directly deal with defending or refuting the argument above.

First interesting proposition (in bold):

It refutes the idea that there is a fundamental problem here with how it is currently set to work. Someone's knowledge plus merc could get them world first cause they had a zany idea, with or without raid leader. There are so many variables, that as long as they are within a certain power level they are not a constraint, but rather a variance like any other, a skill variance, a knowledge variance, etc. Like I said, once the game releases if every single person that gets world first was a RL, and succeeded only because they were a RL (this is tricky, because I think anyone that is really serious about world first achievement hunting will seek out a RL to join their party, just to try to get every possible variance lined up in their favor, they will also do a lot of research on mechanics, potential decks, potential mercs/champions, etc. If there are any other in-game things that could help they will rush to get those done. Being serious about it you look for every little thing you can.

I got a world first myself in wow, it was a lot of work, I used everything I had at my disposal. Including caffeine pills. I might have even used steroids if they would have helped and I had any available. =P
Rephrasing the bolded text above, "The Raid Leader bonus, if allowed, will be mandatory for anyone who is really serious about Wolrd Firsts." This was one of the main fears voiced in Meldryn's post (link), found in the second-to-last paragraph. To hear one of the most vocal people on the other side of the issue come forward and finally admit what some of us have been claiming all along surprised me.

The underlined text I believe to be false, refuted by the argument under discussion above (Items 1-6) because "skill variance" and "knowledge variance" are not internal constraints as defined, while "Raid Leader variance" (if you want to call it that) is indeed an internal constraint.

Second interesting proposition:
"If we were to gradually buff the RL bonus, more and more people would find it unfair." (link)
Rephrasing the above, "The RL bonus is slightly unfair, but most people (in the entirety of the player base at any given time) would not notice (that it is unfair) unless its power were increased."
This meshes perfectly with why "anyone that is really serious about world first achievement hunting will seek out a RL to join their party". It is to "try to get every possible variance lined up in their favor".
EDIT: Unhurtable clarified himself in post 471-473. I updated my rephrasing (which was already correct) to be more clear.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 11:50 AM
I agree with you Nico, but Yoss is championing turning off RL, and such by default if you want to go after PVE achievements.

If they setup PVE tournaments, then sure, ban stuff, make it as fair as possible, but for achievement hunting you should be able to use whatever you've got.
I didn't read the entire thread, just skimmed about 7 posts, but I have nothing against making achievements harder or unique. I think there are going to be a lot of exclusive items that can not be excluded in achievements once you have it though - like the Raid Leader perk, that will most likely never have the ability to toggle off. Not that it hurts to offer the option, if there is more synergy with less cards depending on the mercenaries you play.

Yoss, read what you dropped in above. The only thing I can say is you are still looking at PvE using the word 'Competitive'. I see the need for some control when utilizing PvE cards for competitive modes like Castle Defense, but again, there are no PvP/financial gains outside of PvE currency for playing these modes.

Also, once you take exclusives away from PvE - even when it is considered 'competitive' it does take some of the fun out of cool synergies you worked to achieve. It will really depend on the stakes involved, and how PvE currency transfers to PvP currency.

sayuu
07-19-2013, 11:50 AM
Competitive PvE....
That concept is hurting my brain.



Here, have a carebear hug and a trophy.


Feel any better?

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:02 PM
Yoss, I don't think 2-6 are well established, at all. I listed a myriad reasons why they are not, lets just focus on hammering 1 out if you like then we can move on to the rest, but proving point one does not prove your stance by any means. Also, you use my quote out of context, anyone who is really serious about world firsts will also seek out a knowledgeable theory crafter for decks and new deck interactions, those will be much harder to come by than the RL bonus.

The point you are still failing to grasp of that statement is that every possible variance cannot be aligned. That's part of the balance of the event.

And to your second repurposing of phrase, If the RL bonus is buffed to be an exceptionally large variance then there would be a problem, if it alone could turn the tide, then it is too strong and something must be done. There has been no proof, nor even hints that its strength outweighs knowledge of deck construction, nor approach to tackling world firsts.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 12:07 PM
Yoss thank you for the PM's. I don't think it is fair to say I am posting from ignorance or to ask me to retract my posts :P

I have a firm understanding of the concepts being applied to this thread and the ideas. I also do not agree with them, because I do not believe that a game being designed with both a PvP and PvE mode, that already builds around the fact that the card set for PvP is defined will have a problem with "competitive" play.

I don't believe in Competitive PvE as a concept. If there are world first achievements, then let the good gods praise the lucky kickstarter backers with insurmountable time on their hands to achieve the glory of 1000 rainbows of hapiness from a prolific e-peen extension.

(to add - world first achievements don't make sense in games where exclusives are available that enhance, but whos to say that is any better than people in WOW that found exploits in dungeons for boss fights, or all rolled a paladin because it was the strongest class hands down for over 9 months.)

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 12:14 PM
I don't believe in Competitive PvE as a concept. If there are world first achievements, then let the good gods praise the lucky kickstarter backers with insurmountable time on their hands to achieve the glory of 1000 rainbows of hapiness from a prolific e-peen extension.

Then you fundamentally dont understand this fact.


Anything built upon doing something better/faster/etc than someone else is COMPETITIVE so if you disagree with competitive PvE then you disagree with the concept of the goal.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 12:18 PM
Then you fundamentally dont understand this fact.


Anything built upon doing something better/faster/etc than someone else is COMPETITIVE so if you disagree with competitive PvE then you disagree with the concept of the goal.
When you do something better/faster/etc. you are becoming more efficient. The competitive piece only applies when other people care, or when your efficiency creates a disadvantage for them, thus forcing them to mimic your efficiencies.
People will care about achievements, because although meaningless, it is tangible. I could say I was world first to complete the starcraft 2 campaign, but frankly it's a lie, and no one cares.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:18 PM
Yoss thank you for the PM's. I don't think it is fair to say I am posting from ignorance or to ask me to retract my posts :P
It's not fair for me to make awkward satements about you, but the reverse doesn't hold? Gee thanks. (In case you missed it, you just told everyone what I PM'd you about.)


I have a firm understanding of the concepts being applied to this thread and the ideas. I also do not agree with them, because I do not believe that a game being designed with both a PvP and PvE mode, that already builds around the fact that the card set for PvP is defined will have a problem with "competitive" play.

I don't believe in Competitive PvE as a concept. If there are world first achievements, then let the good gods praise the lucky kickstarter backers with insurmountable time on their hands to achieve the glory of 1000 rainbows of hapiness from a prolific e-peen extension.
So, because some (possibly many) players care about it but you don't, that means it is not worth any consideration whatsoever by the developers?

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:21 PM
Yoss, I don't think 2-6 are well established, at all. I listed a myriad reasons why they are not, lets just focus on hammering 1 out if you like then we can move on to the rest, but proving point one does not prove your stance by any means.
I'd prefer to handle 2 through 6 first, since 1 is the most debated. I'll go back and scrounge up your objections for consideration.


you use my quote out of context, anyone who is really serious about world firsts will also seek out a knowledgeable theory crafter for decks and new deck interactions, those will be much harder to come by than the RL bonus.
If I quote in its entirety, the result would be the same. But since you ask, I will go back and edit.


The point you are still failing to grasp of that statement is that every possible variance cannot be aligned. That's part of the balance of the event.
If you wish me to grasp it, please state it more clearly. What does "every possible variance cannot be aligned" mean to you?


And to your second repurposing of phrase, If the RL bonus is buffed to be an exceptionally large variance then there would be a problem, if it alone could turn the tide, then it is too strong and something must be done. There has been no proof, nor even hints that its strength outweighs knowledge of deck construction, nor approach to tackling world firsts.
Correct. You are restating, and thus reaffirming: "If we were to gradually buff the RL bonus, more and more people would find it unfair."

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 12:23 PM
It's not fair for me to make awkward satements about you, but the reverse doesn't hold? Gee thanks. (In case you missed it, you just told everyone what I PM'd you about.)


So, because some (possibly many) players care about it but you don't, that means it is not worth any consideration whatsoever by the developers?
I respect privacy, but did not appreciate or respect those PM's.
I do think there is a reason to consider what you are mentioning to the developers, but more of a reason to not have world first achievements and other time sensitive achievements, than to change the way exclusives are used for PvE.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:31 PM
No, yoss, you're stating that RL is slightly unfair, I'm saying it's one of an infinite number of variances that can work with or against each other. The fact that you can seek out a bad RL, or use an experienced person with interesting and powerful deck/merc/champ interactions. It's a tradeoff.

Variances include anything that help/hinder completing the dungeon, be that rng from draws, bad cards from the encounter, a strong deck, getting your combos to go off at exactly the right time, ability to work together with your teamates in a raid encounter. The more variances there are the better and more enjoyable the game will be in a general way.

If any one of those is out of balance with the rest then the game will be in a bad state. That includes RL. Can you state definitively that RL will trump any of those variances? You can't possibly, because we haven't seen the PVE game at all. We have no idea what other variances will be included in it innately. We cannot know these things yet.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:32 PM
@Gwaer:
The full quote is now there. Next up are the arguments I missed.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:34 PM
No, yoss, you're stating that RL is slightly unfair, I'm saying it's one of an infinite number of variances that can work with or against each other. The fact that you can seek out a bad RL, or use an experienced person with interesting and powerful deck/merc/champ interactions. It's a tradeoff.

Variances include anything that help/hinder completing the dungeon, be that rng from draws, bad cards from the encounter, a strong deck, getting your combos to go off at exactly the right time, ability to work together with your teamates in a raid encounter. The more variances there are the better and more enjoyable the game will be in a general way.

If any one of those is out of balance with the rest then the game will be in a bad state. That includes RL. Can you state definitively that RL will trump any of those variances? You can't possibly, because we haven't seen the PVE game at all. We have no idea what other variances will be included in it innately. We cannot know these things yet.
I don't need to. All the other variances you list are external, and are therefore not part of my argument. (This is in the update I just told you about.)

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:36 PM
*double post*

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:36 PM
There's no separation between where these variances come from. You're stating it must be so because of this very narrow area you're trying to define that doesn't actually exist.

It's especially obvious when I say any number will be contained within the encounters themselves and you write that off as external as well. It's getting nonsensical.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 12:47 PM
we agree on this its not a point and you don't use it as a precept.


never said it was, the reason for reincluding that statement is a s follows: originally I wanted to clarify that I am not someone who supports handicaps for lack of skill, and you not responded by saying you agree or disagree but simply stating that you think it is fair for pro players to play against non pro players which is fine. ( the context of your statement, however, insinuated (even if you didn't mean to, and if so I apologize no qulams from me) that your understanding of my statment clashed with your opinion. Which it did not, if you did not mean to say it in an argumentative manner then there is nothing further to discuss on this front.)



Again, if i'm quoting your post i'm reading it. Now weather you have made a argument i under stand or agree with are different.
and the competition I set up in my original statement forbade the use of lawnmowers in it. I get my better lawnmower to mow my lawn.
That also means I should be able to mow my lawn faster right?
wrong. either of us could mow the lawn fastest by just burning it down.

That is a nonsensical argument for a few reasons:
1: You are ignoring the fact that by definition, mowing the lawn is actually using lawnmower of some type to do it. (Mowing is not burning)
2: You are also ignoring the fact that when you have no grass you have no lawn(check wikipedia, on the phone so cant link but quote "A lawn is an area of land planted with grasses") therefore no lawn so you cant have a mowed lawn if you have no lawn.
3: EVEN IF I ignore 1 and 2 that is the equivilent of using a glitch that instakills bosses. (aka cheating which I am not claiming RL is but your example would be considered cheating by most)(BTW cheating does NOT exclusively mean breaking the rules, it means circumventing rules sometimes by taking advantage of rules by doing something that is assumed to be known to fall outside the rules but there are no actual rules: It would be like the silly story in M:tG where a child refused to let his platinum angel be destroyed and when the Judge tried to issue him a game loss he couldn't because the angel was on the battlefield)



This etire thread has been about making the world first competition in raids something different from what it is normally.
what it is normally is the second type of race i reference in my admittedly flawed lawnmower analogy.
there is no judge. there are no formal agreed upon rules beyond 'no cheating'.
this is the wild west portion of the game where you can use what ever pve cards and gear you want.



But there are rules, it is an official achievement put into the game BY DESIGN.




hey now, favoring one person is part of competing, i thought you were fine with world champions competing... how are they not favored in their chosen competition

You are not using the definition of favored correctly. The "match and rules" of boxing does not favor one boxer from another, the fans favor one person or the other. It means, actually the definition should prove my point

fa·vor
/ˈfāvər/

Noun
An attitude of approval or liking.

Verb
Feel or show approval or preference for: "a policy that few politicians favor".

Synonyms

noun.
favour - grace - kindness

verb.
favour - support

The rules cannot show an attitude, the developers of the ruels or game can.

The devs are obviously favoring people with KS which is fine as far as business deals go and time and inside information goes, but when it comes to changing the rules of the game for them it falls into unfair advantage as it shows favor (again from devs not game).

again, unless part of the competition is to know about special deals ahead of others it then your ability to do so should not directly effect your outcome.



what you are saying however is "you cant use something if i do not have access to it."

wrong not "don't" but "can't" fundamental differance, I can break out eh dictionary again if i have to


no, the handicapper general does not make the GAME fair he makes the COMPETITORS equal. I am all for the game being fair, but players should be allowed to be different.

NO a handicap in this game would not only give each person the exact same decks, but it would also give you hints based upon your percieved intelligence, THAT IS EQUAL

FAIR is when each person is tested on only the paramaters of the competition. Competition for card games requires: Deduction, experience, time put into grinding, high perception of opponents.etc and for raids: also should incliude management skills,(which are many different skills)
What should NOT be in card game competitions (unless again the competition is collecting) is learning about games before others. It is not a quality that people want to measure. (so the ability to do so should not have an effect on your ability in PvE)

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 12:53 PM
What should NOT be in card game competitions (unless again the competition is collecting) is learning about games before others. It is not a quality that people want to measure. (so the ability to do so should not have an effect on your ability in PvE)
Learning about the game before others lets you get cards that are still legal but are impossible to obtain, that happened in the early days of magic, too. And unlike the situation with achievements it was actually a tournament.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:55 PM
I assume the quote below is the one you say I missed, so here it is:

Much of the issue here is the difficulty with the internal constraint terminology, for example my point #2 which you say it doesn't matter how cory defines game altering, but if it doesn't have any bearing as cory states, then it isn't a constraint at all.
Cory does not deny that the mercs are "game-altering" in the most generic sense. His claim is that no merc will ever be powerful enough to be relevant for competition, yet in the same breath he acknowleges the possibility of having to nerf one that turns out to be unexpectedly overpowered. Therefore, exclusive mercs are game-altering, and while CZE will try very hard to prevent it, an exclusive merc could turn out to be decisive in competitive PVE for some period of time.


my point refutes your item 3 in that there is no way for me to acquire your or someone elses skills/knowledge in how to effectively tackle TCG raids, so there is no way to perfectly balance the game. If RL is less of a bonus than someone who has any amount of experience with TCG's or going after world firsts, then I contend that it is not a constraint at all, and merely a variance.
Item 3 states: "3.The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE."
You claim that skills and/or knowledge are "account-bound game-altering exclusives"? That seems patently false. As for "there is no way to perfectly balance the game", what does that have to do with Item 3? The final premise that "RL is less of a bonus than someone who has any amount of experience" is true (assuming some critical mass of experience) and I've already posted on that topic when ST brought it up (quoted again below). The conclusion "then I contend..." does not follow, because those other "variances" are external while RL is not a variance at all; it is a fixed, non-variable bonus awarded by the game only to certain privileged individuals.

@ST, regarding the amount of training it takes to compete:
You're absolutely right. The primary discriminators will be time and skill (and maybe money depending on how things work out), while RL will be a lesser factor. However, when laying out the rules of a game one must be concerned only with hypothetical contestants whose external constraints are 100% equal. It is for those (non-existent in the real world) contestants that a game designer seeks to achieve perfect balance. Then, when unleashed on the real world, you know that the winner won because of superior qualities outside the control of the game. The game will have served its competitive purpose of proving who is "best".


Also, item 4 on your list was just drawing conclusions from the first three points. which i did at your item 4 as well.
I'm not sure what this is trying to say, but I don't want to ignore it since you might accuse me of going "out of context" when I remove it. If it's important and not already addressed, please restate it for me.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 12:59 PM
It's especially obvious when I say any number will be contained within the encounters themselves and you write that off as external as well. It's getting nonsensical.
Enumerate please. I do not recall violating my own definitions of internal/external. If I have, then you'd be right that I need to update.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 01:00 PM
Learning about the game before others lets you get cards that are still legal but are impossible to obtain, that happened in the early days of magic, too. And unlike the situation with achievements it was actually a tournament.

So go ask MaRo if they would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do that again.(seriously go to blogatog and ask) I would seriously eat a pair of shorts and fly to wherever you are and hand you $200.00 if he didn't have a serious answer, that would say something along the lines of "Of course we wouldn't that. It would be unfair and no one likes feeling shafted. blah blah blah It was tried in the early days to garner more attention and it may have worked but we couldn't afford to do so now"




It is ASSUMED that it was unfair not that it was a non succesfful business move. Not the argument.
















@Yoss: Quick say something controversial, I want to excercise my brain by having a disagreement and civilised discussion with you.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:04 PM
Oh, so we're going back to the other points again? Man, you really need to make up your mind. I find fault with your internal constraint argument still. There's no difference from a game design standpoint between any variance. Reframe the discussion to take that into account, and include all possible leg-ups for completing a world first achievement.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 01:05 PM
Learning about the game before others lets you get cards that are still legal but are impossible to obtain, that happened in the early days of magic, too. And unlike the situation with achievements it was actually a tournament.
Except the MTG cards were tradeable. So are Hex cards. This discussion is not about things that are tradeable in a reasonable quantity, because those are available to everyone (at a price).

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:06 PM
So go ask MaRo if they would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do that again.(seriously go to blogatog and ask) I would seriously eat a pair of shorts and fly to wherever you are and hand you $200.00 if he didn't have a serious answer, that would say something along the lines of "Of course we wouldn't that. It would be unfair and no one likes feeling shafted. blah blah blah It was tried in the early days to garner more attention and it may have worked but we couldn't afford to do so now"


The issue is that they didn't choose to do that, it's a thing that happens when any new game launches, the people in the front of the line have an advantage... They didn't intentionally make it so. It's just unavoidable.

The people that join hex can't possibly get the world first achievements that are already taken for example. That sort of thing cannot be mitigated. So I don't really understand your point about asking MaRo anything.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:07 PM
Except the MTG cards were tradeable. So are Hex cards. This discussion is not about things that are tradeable in a reasonable quantity, because those are available to everyone (at a price).
it doesn't matter if they were tradable, they were impossible to obtain due to quantity.

It also doesn't matter if RL is tradable, it will be impossible to obtain due to quality if hex is successful.

It also doesn't matter if mercs are tradable, many of them would be in the same situation. The haves having "advantage" over the have nots in the anything goes achievement hunting area, which is why this discussion is pointless ultimately. Tournaments will take care of people who are serious about being competitive in a pve sense. Where none of these issues will exist.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 01:14 PM
For reference:

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.
Account Bound: anything in the game you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to


Oh, so we're going back to the other points again? Man, you really need to make up your mind.
You asked me to, more or less, by saying that I'd ignored your counter-arguments. Since I didn't want that hanging over my head while we work on Item 1, I chose to address them sooner rather than later.


I find fault with your internal constraint argument still. There's no difference from a game design standpoint between any variance. Reframe the discussion to take that into account, and include all possible leg-ups for completing a world first achievement.
I do not know what you mean by my "internal constraint argument". Please state a specific item number and be more clear about why it is either untrue (if it's a premise) or dependent on fallacious reasoning (if it is a conclusion). (In case it's not obvious, definitions of terms cannot be true or false; they simply provide a compact way to refer to a more complex object.)

Yoss
07-19-2013, 01:20 PM
It also doesn't matter if RL is tradable, it will be impossible to obtain due to quality if hex is successful.
Meldryn already said this in post 134, and I agree. There are only just over 1,000 RL out there, which is not nearly enough to support a competitive raiding scene in a successful MMO.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:23 PM
I actually would prefer to take them 1 by 1, you just declared all the rest of them to have no issue, which I took issue with. 1 is the starting point, and what the rest are built on, so it doesn't make much sense to worry about them first.

and my issue is still your use of "internal constraints" why is it only important that they be equalized? Why shouldn't they be balanced by 'external constraints', especially since many games introduce negative 'internal constraints' to combat 'external constraints'. Like a logged out XP bonus for instance so that people who can't play constantly can keep up with people who play all the time. Your artificial segregation is fallacious, therefore every single point building on it would be, too.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 01:25 PM
Meldryn already said this in post 134, and I agree. There are only just over 1,000 RL out there, which is not nearly enough to support a competitive raiding scene in a successful MMO.

Having 1,2, or 3 extra cards in your hand doesn't take away from a players experience in raids balanced around having a starting hand of 7.
Meldryn's entire post is a self-fulfilling dream of 3-player raids being equivalent to 25 man raids in WOW. World's first in Hex may matter and may actually be achievable, but it will not be on the coat-tails of a 1,000+ players with RL perks.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 01:33 PM
The issue is that they didn't choose to do that, it's a thing that happens when any new game launches, the people in the front of the line have an advantage... They didn't intentionally make it so. It's just unavoidable.

The people that join hex can't possibly get the world first achievements that are already taken for example. That sort of thing cannot be mitigated. So I don't really understand your point about asking MaRo anything.

you are avoiding the argument


the point of contention:

Is it FAIR?
Should it be in the game?

My answere to both of those: NO
However, I already got the slacker backer and will play both PvE and PvP and if RL is a big deal? I will cope by finding a decent player that has it or try to buy an account with it already.

I am not even saying that CZE shouldn't put it into the game because their goal is to make money they cant back out now and the promise may have may have garnered more money than discouraged. However as far as competitions go it has no place in the purest sense.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:37 PM
Which is why Tournament pve is where the people who are interested in true competitions will be.

Achievements are just a fun add on for people to use whatever means necessary inside of not exploiting the game systems to trivialize encounters and get them as quickly as possible. And it will probably dominated by a guy with a super secret neat merc/card interaction who isn't even a raid leader.

Shadowelf
07-19-2013, 01:40 PM
I am not even saying that CZE shouldn't put it into the game because their goal is to make money they cant back out now and the promise may have may have garnered more money than discouraged. However as far as competitions go it has no place in the purest sense.

I wouldn't worry beforehand about RL; we don't yet how it/if will affect gameplay. And if cze deems it too powerfull then maybe it will make it craftable as consumable buff (potion?) and everybody can get his hands on it, albeit not as easily as those that bought the perk of KS

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 01:48 PM
@Yoss: Quick say something controversial, I want to excercise my brain by having a disagreement and civilised discussion with you.
now im sure you are trolling, which is to bad because it seemed like you had something to add.


Having 1,2, or 3 extra cards in your hand doesn't take away from a players experience in raids balanced around having a starting hand of 7.
Meldryn's entire post is a self-fulfilling dream of 3-player raids being equivalent to 25 man raids in WOW. World's first in Hex may matter and may actually be achievable, but it will not be on the coat-tails of a 1,000+ players with RL perks.

He also posted once, and then went inactive it seems. Which is to bad.


For reference:


So, after reading the last 30ish posts since the one quoted here, I think it is fair to say again that Items 2 through 6 are well established and thus the entire argument hangs on defense of Item 1. Nearly every one of the posts I just read has been on one side or the other of a debate about whether Item 1 is valid. It has also been a recurring theme throughout these 40 pages. To restate as a question and in a simpler (but possibly less accurate) way: Is it necessary for all competitors in a game to be treated equally under the rules of that game?

See I was granting you point one, and now you want to dispute it?
Point one may or may not be true, there are plenty of examples why both sides are right and you can go back and forth about it.
I am interested in the logic that says 1 ergo 6 QED.
point one being true does not mean point 6 is true, so GIVEN point one of which you are convinced, prove to me point 6.
included for referance:

1. Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
6. the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.





Second interesting proposition:
"If we were to gradually buff the RL bonus, more and more people would find it unfair." (link)
Rephrasing the above, "The RL bonus is slightly unfair, but most people would not notice unless its power were increased."
This meshes perfectly with why "anyone that is really serious about world first achievement hunting will seek out a RL to join their party". It is to "try to get every possible variance lined up in their favor".

more people would find it unfair because not only would the people who find it unfair now think it was unfair but also the people who purchased other things they were told would not be altered in the kickstarter would find it unfair. if these groups are not the same people then more people would find it unfair without the actual advantage being conffered becoming more unfair.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 01:48 PM
Which is why Tournament pve is where the people who are interested in true competitions will be.

Achievements are just a fun add on for people to use whatever means necessary inside of not exploiting the game systems to trivialize encounters and get them as quickly as possible. And it will probably dominated by a guy with a super secret neat merc/card interaction who isn't even a raid leader.

well then discussion closed between us as that response to me says you agree it is unfair advantage in competition and that acceptable that you do not view world first as competitive( I disagree but not enough to really make an argument)


I wouldn't worry beforehand about RL; we don't yet how it/if will affect gameplay. And if cze deems it too powerfull then maybe it will make it craftable as consumable buff (potion?) and everybody can get his hands on it, albeit not as easily as those that bought the perk of KS

I am not worried I will be fine it is the premise not the execution I have an issue with.



now im sure you are trolling, which is to bad because it seemed like you had something to add.

I would encourage you actually read my comment and find any fallacies. I said it as I enjoy the way that yoss adresses the situation, explains in depth, and shows his/her logical progression. I apologize if you feel slighted by the comment.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 01:52 PM
compiling so many people to respond to and this isn't reddit

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 01:58 PM
I think the world first situation is a competition, I just don't think that all competitions need to be fair. Tournaments should be fair, achievements only counting for people not using RL, not using mercs, not using any other exclusive that might come out seems ridiculous to me. Especially since there is no way to balance against the producers who don't have to farm their decks, and can just put their 4 of every card to immediate use. Leave achievements in the realm of fun competitions but not exactly fair, and make tournaments where people actually test their skills against one another.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 02:06 PM
I think the world first situation is a competition, I just don't think that all competitions need to be fair. Tournaments should be fair, achievements only counting for people not using RL, not using mercs, not using any other exclusive that might come out seems ridiculous to me. Especially since there is no way to balance against the producers who don't have to farm their decks, and can just put their 4 of every card to immediate use. Leave achievements in the realm of fun competitions but not exactly fair, and make tournaments where people actually test their skills against one another.

what are you measuring if the competition isn't fair.

A competition is a display of X to succeed.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 02:07 PM
I think the world first situation is a competition, I just don't think that all competitions need to be fair. Tournaments should be fair, achievements only counting for people not using RL, not using mercs, not using any other exclusive that might come out seems ridiculous to me. Especially since there is no way to balance against the producers who don't have to farm their decks, and can just put their 4 of every card to immediate use. Leave achievements in the realm of fun competitions but not exactly fair, and make tournaments where people actually test their skills against one another.

I agree with this. THE reason that world and server firsts were so important to the hardcore pve crowd in WOW was because there was no other good way to compete for PVE. Hex is not stuck in that like WoW is and can have PVE tournaments pretty easily, there was a whole thread of awesome suggestions around here somewhere. (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=26275)

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 02:09 PM
No competition can ever be truly fair, it can only be as fair as possible, without breaking the game mechanics, or rewards people were promised, or compromising normal play, it seems to me that the generic achievement hunt is "fair enough" RL isn't an unbalancingly huge buff. It's a perk, definitely. To unilaterally take it away from the people that bought it is just not workable. Does that mean there cannot be tournament related achievements that will turn off RL? Absolutely not. It's just that needs to be a subset rather than the status quo.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 02:10 PM
what are you measuring if the competition isn't fair.

A competition is a display of X to succeed.

no.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competition

it is a rivalry for a prize, in this case the achievement.
you are not measuring something with competition, you are competing.

Kslidz
07-19-2013, 02:18 PM
no.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/competition

it is a rivalry for a prize, in this case the achievement.
you are not measuring something with competition, you are competing.

True so I guess my misconcieved notion that competition Have to be fair is ungrounded by definition. Although I do believe that they SHOULD be or there is no honor in it.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 02:23 PM
True so I guess my misconcieved notion that competition Have to be fair is ungrounded by definition. Although I do believe that they SHOULD be or there is no honor in it.

the honor would never be in the competition, but in the actions of those that compete.
You can be a person of integrity without being in or taking part in a system that has that quality.
Fame and Glory need not be for the winner.(i am reminded of the end of cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_(film)))

Yoss
07-19-2013, 03:30 PM
you are not measuring something with competition, you are competing.
A classical "pissing contest" in the litteral sense is measuring something. Is it not a competition? If not, what do you call it?

Yoss
07-19-2013, 03:33 PM
For reference:

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.
Account Bound: anything in the game you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to


He also posted once, and then went inactive it seems. Which is to bad.
You could PM him (Meldryn). What is it you're hoping for him to say that he hasn't already?


See I was granting you point one, and now you want to dispute it?
Wait, what? I was going off of this:

you just would need to include your reasoning for the deffenition that you have above. if that is sound then your reasoning for the rest of it follows unless you make a paradox or contradiction.

its all well and good to just define it one way, but it dosen't explain why your division of the game world is better or more fitting then mine. after all the whole conversation is about not just dictating things i presume but trying to communicate why you think they are that way. if you just wanted to tell us your opinion i think you did that a while ago :)
I guess I didn't read it right.


Point one may or may not be true, there are plenty of examples why both sides are right and you can go back and forth about it.
I am interested in the logic that says 1 ergo 6 QED.
point one being true does not mean point 6 is true, so GIVEN point one of which you are convinced, prove to me point 6.
Item 1 does not lead to Item 6 by itself because it is not the only premise upon which the argument depends. Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all premises, assertions not of logic but of fact. (We can debate whether or not they are true.) Items 1, 2, and 3 lead logically to Item 4, while Items 4 and 5 lead logically to Item 6. (We can debate whether or not this logic holds.)


more people would find it unfair because not only would the people who find it unfair now think it was unfair but also the people who purchased other things they were told would not be altered in the kickstarter would find it unfair. if these groups are not the same people then more people would find it unfair without the actual advantage being conffered becoming more unfair.
I guess we need Unhurtable to clarify what he meant by "more and more people". Your explanation could work, but you're putting words in his mouth. Perhaps I am too.


I think the world first situation is a competition, I just don't think that all competitions need to be fair.
Crux of the issue, right here. Should a favored player in chess be allowed to resurrect one pawn per game while the other is not? Should a favored player in golf start with -1 strokes? Should a favored football team be given one extra point to start? This list could go on and on...


achievements only counting for people not using RL, not using mercs, not using any other exclusive that might come out seems ridiculous to me. Especially since there is no way to balance against the producers who don't have to farm their decks, and can just put their 4 of every card to immediate use. Leave achievements in the realm of fun competitions but not exactly fair, and make tournaments where people actually test their skills against one another.
I've already addressed the Producers in post 392:

@ST and others, Regarding 4-of everything:
That is an external constraint. All those things can be acquired through time and/or money spent. Producers went to the extreme end of the "spend money versus spend time" continuum. I prefer to treat them as having a time advantage similar to (but better than) Guild Leaders and Dungeon Crawlers.


No competition can ever be truly fair, it can only be as fair as possible, without breaking the game mechanics, or rewards people were promised, or compromising normal play, it seems to me that the generic achievement hunt is "fair enough" RL isn't an unbalancingly huge buff. It's a perk, definitely. To unilaterally take it away from the people that bought it is just not workable.
How I read this:
Competition does not need to be fair (this statement is too vague for me, but I'll say I do not agree with the caveat that I'm referring to a negation of my formulation of the "must be fair" premise)
RL is a buff and not available equally to all competitors so it is not fair
RL is not overpowered
RL was promised to work in World First competition (Do not agree)
KS backers should be given what they were promised
Therefore (4+5), "To unilaterally take it away from the people that bought it is just not workable." (but since premise 4 fails this conclusion also fails)

Unhurtable
07-19-2013, 03:59 PM
I guess we need Unhurtable to clarify what he meant by "more and more people". Your explanation could work, but you're putting words in his mouth. Perhaps I am too.

In hindsight, what I said was very vague when it comes to what I was trying to say. The rephrasing provided was to the most part what I was thinking when I wrote that, but not entirely, so I'll try to rephrase it now to clarify.



Currently, some part of the current player base, regardless of tier of KS backed, asserts that the RL bonus is fine and fair, because of its current strength. If that strength were to be higher (lets say 10 extra cards instead of 1 for extremes sake) more people would consider the RL bonus to be unfair due to it being something exclusive. In addition to this, people joining the game after release would naturally be more accepting of the current bonus rather than the extreme example (since they would view the competition as more fair).


In short, what I failed to express before was that "more and more people" should essentially be "a larger part of the entire player base". Regardless if the RL bonus was improved now, or was done so before the KS, a larger part of the player base would conceive the RL bonus as unfair. Most affected would be those new to the game, and least affected would be those in possession of the RL bonus or people who have easy access to that bonus (maybe people who only raid with a friend of theirs who has the RL bonus).

What wasn't entirely accurate was "but most people would not notice unless its power were increased" which depends on what you mean by "notice". Are these people noticing the effects of the RL bonus, or are they noticing that it exists and just thinks its unfair?

Yoss
07-19-2013, 04:13 PM
What wasn't entirely accurate was "but most people would not notice unless its power were increased" which depends on what you mean by "notice". Are these people noticing the effects of the RL bonus, or are they noticing that it exists and just thinks its unfair?
"most people would not notice that it is unfair unless its power were increased"

Unhurtable
07-19-2013, 04:19 PM
"most people would not notice that it is unfair unless its power were increased"

Well then yeah, the rephrasing was pretty much accurate.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 04:28 PM
Updated post 428, where this all started.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 04:37 PM
Chess is as close to a perfectly balanced game as you get. It isn't however a terribly engaging game, you can spend your whole life playing chess just trying to memorize the optimal way to do things, that's what comes from balance, I can relink my perfect imbalance extra credits video now if you like?

A card game like this can never be perfectly balanced because it relies on draws, and isn't a mirror. People get -1's in golf all the time, it's called a handicap, and if for some reason a person running a golf course granted everyone who donated a certain amount of money the ability to -1 their official scores in non tournament play, then there's not really much issue with that is there? The people who also attend the golf club will be aware of that, they will say whatever they like about those people, but in the real tournaments the victors will have no excuses, there is no -1 there.

general achievements are the normal day to day gameplay in the golf club. There are still tournaments though, for people that are bothered by the situation.

Atomzed
07-19-2013, 05:25 PM
Guys, I think this is going too much around in circles.

Both sides, whom i would describe as
- pro-RL-nerf (nerfing includes tagging world first teams with RL bonus or not) and
- anti-RL-nerf (prefer to keep as status quo). (note that there are definitely people who falls in between, so its not an either-or categorisation).

For all that was said, I think the crux of the "issue" with Raid Leader bonus for both sides are

1) Is having a RL bonus an advantage?

- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes! The bonus is an advantage, and that any advantage should be taken out of a competition.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Yes, the bonus is an advantage, just like any inherent competitive edge that one tries to maximise in a competition.

2) Should PVE tournaments, be it in the form of world-first or wild-wild-west, be made fair?
- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes, it should be made fair, and hence the RL bonus should be taken out as it would make people unhappy and discriminate those without RL bonus.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Not all tournaments have to be made fair, as tournaments inherently allows competitors of different attributes to compete within the rules of the tourney.

3) Is world-first considered an official CZE tournament?
- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes, and hence it should be made fair.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Maybe, as it is dependent on CZE definition of CZE tournament.

4) Is nerfing RL bonus unfair to the RL pledgers?
-Pro-RL-nerf: Unfair question, you can nerf it in a way that allows them to keep their bonus intact (such as separate tracking of world-first with RL and without RL).
- Anti-RL-nerf: Yes, it is unfair to the RL pledgers and hence should never be touched.

I think while Yoss have tried his best to find a common point to discuss the issue (including definitions of fairness, tournament, etc), there are too many diverse views for the 4 points (advantage, tournament, fairness, post-KS-change). Because of that, the whole discussion is going around in circles.

(So far, I have not seen any additional pointers raised. Please let me know if there are broad categories that I have missed.)

Hexgo
07-19-2013, 05:52 PM
Guys, I think this is going too much around in circles.

Both sides, whom i would describe as
- pro-RL-nerf (nerfing includes tagging world first teams with RL bonus or not) and
- anti-RL-nerf (prefer to keep as status quo). (note that there are definitely people who falls in between, so its not an either-or categorisation).

For all that was said, I think the crux of the "issue" with Raid Leader bonus for both sides are

1) Is having a RL bonus an advantage?

- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes! The bonus is an advantage, and that any advantage should be taken out of a competition.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Yes, the bonus is an advantage, just like any inherent competitive edge that one tries to maximise in a competition.

2) Should PVE tournaments, be it in the form of world-first or wild-wild-west, be made fair?
- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes, it should be made fair, and hence the RL bonus should be taken out as it would make people unhappy and discriminate those without RL bonus.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Not all tournaments have to be made fair, as tournaments inherently allows competitors of different attributes to compete within the rules of the tourney.

3) Is world-first considered an official CZE tournament?
- Pro-RL-nerf: Yes, and hence it should be made fair.
- Anti-RL-nerf: Maybe, as it is dependent on CZE definition of CZE tournament.

4) Is nerfing RL bonus unfair to the RL pledgers?
-Pro-RL-nerf: Unfair question, you can nerf it in a way that allows them to keep their bonus intact (such as separate tracking of world-first with RL and without RL).
- Anti-RL-nerf: Yes, it is unfair to the RL pledgers and hence should never be touched.

I think while Yoss have tried his best to find a common point to discuss the issue (including definitions of fairness, tournament, etc), there are too many diverse views for the 4 points (advantage, tournament, fairness, post-KS-change). Because of that, the whole discussion is going around in circles.

(So far, I have not seen any additional pointers raised. Please let me know if there are broad categories that I have missed.)

It is going in circles it appears.

But honestly I see the 2 sides in a different way:
One side that takes Competitive PVE "serious" or understands why some people do.
One side that thinks Competitive PVE doesn't matter. (Because it’s impossible someone would take any game/sport as something competitive with such kind of bias BY RULE). The middle way of course is to let all achievements only be done without the buffs (turned off). We all still would have the buffs to train/farm, which still would be absolutly awesome.

If there would have been any buff to PVP on the Kickstarter, this would have been a disaster in the first place and no one would ever defend such a buff.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 06:46 PM
The only person with that stance I've seen is nicosharp.
i take the idea of competitive PVE quite seriously.
That's why I made a PVE tournaments thread.
Achievement hunting is a competition, sure.
But so is racing to the car and calling shotgun.
Tournaments should be where the real meat it happens.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 07:29 PM
Item 1 does not lead to Item 6 by itself because it is not the only premise upon which the argument depends. Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all premises, assertions not of logic but of fact. (We can debate whether or not they are true.) Items 1, 2, and 3 lead logically to Item 4, while Items 4 and 5 lead logically to Item 6. (We can debate whether or not this logic holds.)

Right, which is why asking you to clarify point 2 is important to me.
if point 2 isn't sound then the rest of them don't matter even point 1, because the logic dosent hold.
Alot of effort seems to be going in circles about point 1, but its not the only reason for the argument.

Maybe you are right and a Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
i don't think so, but i'm tabling that because the issue it had is actually weather the world firsts attemtps with the raid lead bonus should get a asterisk of shame.

so tabling point one and assuming it to be true. Why does the fact that worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors require that the raid lead bonus not apply for world first attempts necessarily or that raid lead world firsts be necessarily segregated from those without it.



I've already addressed the Producers in post 392:



Updated post 428, where this all started.

Yoss, i love you but please don't do stuff like this without links, the thread is big.


How I read this:
Competition does not need to be fair (this statement is too vague for me, but I'll say I do not agree with the caveat that I'm referring to a negation of my formulation of the "must be fair" premise)
RL is a buff and not available equally to all competitors so it is not fair
RL is not overpowered
RL was promised to work in World First competition (Do not agree)
KS backers should be given what they were promised
Therefore (4+5), "To unilaterally take it away from the people that bought it is just not workable." (but since premise 4 fails this conclusion also fails)

thats a hell of a straw man, lets see if i cant describe my side better?


The world first achievement is a prize
to get the prize you must complete the activity the achievement describes first, without breaking the EULA.
The raid lead bonus clearly does not break the EULA.
I can use the Raid lead bonus to help earn me the prize.

that's why people want to use the raid lead buff in a nutshell. I also doubt anyone will argue with it, because nobody cares about why we want to use it, poepel care about weather or not it is FAIR
and for that i offer this
Any advantage that is fairly obtained is fair
The raid leader bonus is given as just compensation for money by Cryptozoic
I owned the money I gave to Cryptozoic.
Cryptozoic now has my money.
Therefore Cryptozoic has just compensation for the raid leader bonus.
The process of acquiring the raid leader bonus in this matter was unbiased.
the transaction was honest and transparent for all parties.
Things that are just, honest, and unbiased are fair.
(5+6+7)Therefore IF I have the raid lead bonus I acquired it fairly.
(1+8)Therefore the advantage i have is fair

QED.
that was fun, again, if you quote this post please frame your argument in this form so we can all look at it and understand exactly where you are coming from and why you think that and figure out where we disagree exactly.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 07:37 PM
The only person with that stance I've seen is nicosharp.
i take the idea of competitive PVE quite seriously.
That's why I made a PVE tournaments thread.
Achievement hunting is a competition, sure.
But so is racing to the car and calling shotgun.
Tournaments should be where the real meat it happens.
Well, yes, I think competitive PvE is a joke(at least in terms of time-run achievements), and I might be the only one that feels that way, but...
if you want to do competitive PvE well, look at a game like Path of Exile.
Basically, what they do is have month long, daily, weekly, etc. 'runs' where the individuals that make the highest level get rewards that can be used in-game and power the characters they play.
In this example, players use other players to help them 'run' and work on builds to propel them further, even at the expense of 1 or two of their friends that they use as 'mules'.
Gimmick builds, and flavor of the month meta applies to this example. Exploits, in some way can refer to the builds these players run, and how they push content with those builds. The items they receive make them even stronger for future runs because they are bind on account.

If you are going to create PvE 'run' scenarios having a even footing with everyone else at some point is a given, but when you start dealing with arbitrary things, like cards in hand, that has nothing to do with the number of cards in your deck or the types of cards you can play, or mercenaries that all benefit from different synergies, you really lose sight of how 'run' achievements are accomplished, and what your interpretation of 'competitive PvE' really is.

I think we can all agree what this post really boils down to. It is about world first achievements. Everything else can not be well defended, as we know there will be restrictions anyone can place on PvE tournaments.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 07:44 PM
Also,
That is an external constraint. All those things can be acquired through time and/or money spent. Producers went to the extreme end of the "spend money versus spend time" continuum. I prefer to treat them as having a time advantage similar to (but better than) Guild Leaders and Dungeon Crawlers.

Once again you're falsely labeling something as external constraint and therefore not valid. Day 1, a producer could beat everything first. That's huge, and it's just as not fair. It's 1,000x more likely to give world firsts than RL. You're just artificially trying to limit the argument with this external/internal constraint nonsense.

Furthermore, your own "definition" of this flawed concept you made up that you're trying to force us all to work within.


Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.

The game is designed so that all characters do not start with all cards, all cards being given to a select few so they do not have to play the game to earn the cards to work up to world first is an internal constraint by this definition.

That they paid money, which you can no longer do, to skip the most difficult part of the world first process, building a deck that can take down whatever is thrown at it is irrelevant. That you can eventually get all the cards, also is irrelevant in the scope of a world first competition, since very likely all of them will be taken before you have the opportunity to catch up on months of work.

Edit: Sorry Nico , I wasn't attacking you in my post, in a lot of what you say on this subject I agree. I just didn't like that the entire side that doesn't agree with yoss was declared to not care about competitive PVE just because of a couple of posts you made.

nicosharp
07-19-2013, 07:49 PM
No worries, I didn't see it as an attack. I thought I should clarify a bit at least.

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 07:50 PM
Edit: Sorry Nico , I wasn't attacking you in my post, in a lot of what you say on this subject I agree. I just didn't like that the entire side that doesn't agree with yoss was declared to not care about competitive PVE just because of a couple of posts you made.
Yeah, I hate being labeled something I'm not or being told I said something I did not.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 07:57 PM
Also, [COLOR=#333333]

Once again you're falsely labeling something as external constraint and therefore not valid. Day 1, a producer could beat everything first. That's huge, and it's just as not fair. It's 1,000x more likely to give world firsts than RL. You're just artificially trying to limit the argument with this external/internal constraint nonsense.

Furthermore, your own "definition" of this flawed concept you made up that you're trying to force us all to work within.


The game is designed so that all characters do not start with all cards, all cards being given to a select few so they do not have to play the game to earn the cards to work up to world first is an internal constraint by this definition.

That they paid money, which you can no longer do, to skip the most difficult part of the world first process, building a deck that can take down whatever is thrown at it is irrelevant. That you can eventually get all the cards, also is irrelevant in the scope of a world first competition, since very likely all of them will be taken before you have the opportunity to catch up on months of work.


this is a massive point, i doubt even the dedicated few who would normally get world firsts will be able to keep up with people that get a play set of the loot /for defeating that boss/ before the boss has been defeated.
world firsts are almost reserved for producers if they want them, the rest of us having to grind up pve cards with our pvp stockpiles before we can make successful attempts.

Side note: i fully expect beating a raid boss without pve cards to be much harder then highlander mode.

Gorgol
07-19-2013, 08:00 PM
this is a massive point, i doubt even the dedicated few who would normally get world firsts will be able to keep up with people that get a play set of the loot /for defeating that boss/ before the boss has been defeated.
world firsts are almost reserved for producers if they want them, the rest of us having to grind up pve cards with our pvp stockpiles before we can make successful attempts.

Side note: i fully expect beating a raid boss without pve cards to be much harder then highlander mode.

Yay people realizing a point I've been making about this whole thing for a few weeks now. :)
Guess I should be happy its at least being discussed now.
The question is, should we ban producers from World First eligibility? If no, then banning anything else earned or bought fairly is wrong.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 08:01 PM
Yay people realizing a point I've been making about this whole thing for a few weeks now. :)
No, we've gotten behind it a few times, it just keeps getting deflected for silly reasons, then something else ridiculous shows up to argue about.
Though if you were the first person to mention it, it's a great point. Well done. =) We'll see if it actually gets discussed this time.

Yoss
07-19-2013, 10:42 PM
For reference:

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Therefore (1+2+3), account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Therefore (4+5), the Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not imposed by the game.
Account Bound: anything in the game you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to


Right, which is why asking you to clarify point 2 is important to me.
if point 2 isn't sound then the rest of them don't matter even point 1, because the logic dosent hold.
Alot of effort seems to be going in circles about point 1, but its not the only reason for the argument.

Maybe you are right and a Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
i don't think so, but i'm tabling that because the issue it had is actually weather the world firsts attemtps with the raid lead bonus should get a asterisk of shame.

so tabling point one and assuming it to be true.
OK, Item 1 assumed true on a provisional basis.


Why does the fact that worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors require that the raid lead bonus not apply for world first attempts necessarily or that raid lead world firsts be necessarily segregated from those without it.
I think you're jumping ahead too far. You are asking for explanations for the flow of logic but you have not yet accepted the premises. You gave provisional agreement on Premise 1 (tabled). Did you agree with Premises 2, 3, and 5? Maybe use a list where you agree, table, or disagree with each item and give details when you do not agree?


Yoss, i love you but please don't do stuff like this without links, the thread is big.
I provided both the quote and link for post 392. The update to 428 is stated in the three posts preceding my note about the update (posts 471-474) so I (wrongly) assumed it was obvious what I was updating; I suppose I could have linked, but the update was pretty minor. Sorry for the trouble.


thats a hell of a straw man, lets see if i cant describe my side better?
I was responding to Gwaer's paragraph and attempting to put it into logic form. I guess I failed, so I'll let Gwaer do his own logic formatting from now on. You provide a nice format, so that'll be much easier:



The world first achievement is a prize
to get the prize you must complete the activity the achievement describes first, without breaking the EULA.
The raid lead bonus clearly does not break the EULA.
I can use the Raid lead bonus to help earn me the prize.

that's why people want to use the raid lead buff in a nutshell. I also doubt anyone will argue with it, because nobody cares about why we want to use it
Premise 1 agree.
Premise 2 agree, unless you imply that the EULA represents the totality of constraints.
Premise 3 agree.
Conclusion 4 not agree. In order for 4 to flow from 123, you must imply that the EULA represents the totality of constraints, which I do not concede. I argue that you have at least one missing premise, which would provide the missing constraints that premise 2 leaves out. Once you add that, you may find you need other premises as well in order to get back on track.


poepel care about weather or not it is FAIR
and for that i offer this
Any advantage that is fairly obtained is fair
The raid leader bonus is given as just compensation for money by Cryptozoic
I owned the money I gave to Cryptozoic.
Cryptozoic now has my money.
Therefore Cryptozoic has just compensation for the raid leader bonus.
The process of acquiring the raid leader bonus in this matter was unbiased.
the transaction was honest and transparent for all parties.
Things that are just, honest, and unbiased are fair.
(5+6+7)Therefore IF I have the raid lead bonus I acquired it fairly.
(1+8)Therefore the advantage i have is fair

QED.
Premise 6 not agree. You need to more clearly state this, but I think I can guess what you mean. If you mean that everyone who knew about it had equal opportunity, assuming unlimited resources, to purchase RL during the window of availability, that much is true and among the group of "everyone who knew about it" the process was unbiased. However, it is biased against those who didn't know about it and biased towards those who did.

Gwaer
07-19-2013, 11:05 PM
Every hex tournament is biased against people who didn't know about it and for people that did. Hell every competition is biased that way... Hell any prize is biased that way... I can't think of a single thing that isn't biased that way...

Moreover, the Eula is the only constraints that we know to exist on playing the game. Speculating that they will remove RL from general achievements for your reasoning is just speculation and doesn't belong in the logic chain about the item in question.

Furthermore! I look forward to your discussion of my post #481.

ShadowTycho
07-19-2013, 11:36 PM
I think you're jumping ahead too far. You are asking for explanations for the flow of logic but you have not yet accepted the premises. You gave provisional agreement on Premise 1 (tabled). Did you agree with Premises 2, 3, and 5? Maybe use a list where you agree, table, or disagree with each item and give details when you do not agree?

I am not a fan of point 2, about how the ability to aquire account bound bonuses area internal constraint of pve. I don't think this can be taken for granted personally. If anything the entire problem seems to be that it is not internal to pve, if you could acquire these bonuses thorugh pve then i do not think you would have a problem with them(but don't let me put words in your mouth.)


I am not a fan of point 3, its patently untrue. The ability to acquire bonuses is utterly equal. no one may aquire them, that's completely equal.

you make a logical leap in here about how the ability to acquire a bonus is the same as having that bonus. IF it was then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
that not withstanding.
point 4 would follow from 1,2,3 but 2 and 3 are questionable.
5 is a fact.
6 would follow form 4 and 5 but 4 is questionable(because 2 and 3 are)
link to argument (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25983&page=40&p=275551&viewfull=1#post275551)


Premise 1 agree.
Premise 2 agree, unless you imply that the EULA represents the totality of constraints.
Premise 3 agree.
Conclusion 4 not agree. In order for 4 to flow from 123, you must imply that the EULA represents the totality of constraints, which I do not concede. I argue that you have at least one missing premise, which would provide the missing constraints that premise 2 leaves out. Once you add that, you may find you need other premises as well in order to get back on track.


Premise 6 not agree. You need to more clearly state this, but I think I can guess what you mean. If you mean that everyone who knew about it had equal opportunity, assuming unlimited resources, to purchase RL during the window of availability, that much is true and among the group of "everyone who knew about it" the process was unbiased. However, it is biased against those who didn't know about it and biased towards those who did.
premise 2: the EULA does represent the totality of the constraints for obtaining the prize. People have argued that more constraints SHOULD be put on the prize, but those constraints are not currently ON the prize, so this statement is correct. If you complete the requirements of the achievement, you get the achievement unless you cheated. cheating is defined as violating the EULA.

premise 6:when i bought grand king, the kickstarter was on day 3. none of the tiers were maxed out and anyone whom wanted to pledge could(and many of you did). we all saw the exact same video, and we all read the same text. No discrimination occurred during the pledge drive aside from i believe people from out of the US having issues with amazon payments(not sure on this, i believe it was fixed ASAP)
When i pledged no one person could possibly have been excluded or discriminated against by the kickstarter and this continued to the end of kickstarter for both the producer and raid leader tiers. Now since the raid lead bonus came in at $250 there was a barrier to entry. It was however a unbiased barrier to entry, everyone who got it paid for it. no favorites or cheating(that i know of)
so then during the kick starter we can agree it was unbiased i hope.
the kickstarter ended, at the same time for everyone at the time it said it would. It practiced no discretion or favoritism. This is unbaised.
The slacker backer option does not offer anything we seem to be interested in here, so we can conclude the kickstarter and its distribution of tiers was unbiased since it favored no one. therich were given no advantage for simply being rich, the poor were not excluded from any offer by just being poor. They may not have been able to pay the asking price on those things, but they were OFFERED THEM and they REFUSED TO PAY. everyone saw the same stuff irregardless of race,gender or creed.
simply showing up late does not mean someone is acting in a way that is biased against you.
i am not saying it was equal, but it certainly tried its very best to be unbiased, honest and Just.

Unhurtable
07-20-2013, 02:16 AM
Chess is as close to a perfectly balanced game as you get. It isn't however a terribly engaging game, you can spend your whole life playing chess just trying to memorize the optimal way to do things, that's what comes from balance, I can relink my perfect imbalance extra credits video now if you like?

A card game like this can never be perfectly balanced because it relies on draws, and isn't a mirror. People get -1's in golf all the time, it's called a handicap, and if for some reason a person running a golf course granted everyone who donated a certain amount of money the ability to -1 their official scores in non tournament play, then there's not really much issue with that is there? The people who also attend the golf club will be aware of that, they will say whatever they like about those people, but in the real tournaments the victors will have no excuses, there is no -1 there.

general achievements are the normal day to day gameplay in the golf club. There are still tournaments though, for people that are bothered by the situation.

What do you mean by a perfectly balanced game?
- Is it when both sides have an equal opportunity within the game to win, regardless of setup?
- Is it when all base setups (diamond, sapphire, ruby etc) decks have an equal opportunity within the game to win? Example would be "Ruby decks have an average 50% win percentage versus Diamond, Sapphire, Blood or Wild decks".
- Is it when the game is only based on what player is the best?

The problem with your analogy is that there is only 1 golf club at the moment. I'm not saying this because Hex is the only TCG-MMO at the moment, but because Hex only has 1 golf club. If there were more golf clubs and all of them didn't follow the same (IMO unfair rule) I would most probably be perfectly fine with the various KS bonuses at the moment.


Yay people realizing a point I've been making about this whole thing for a few weeks now. :)
Guess I should be happy its at least being discussed now.
The question is, should we ban producers from World First eligibility? If no, then banning anything else earned or bought fairly is wrong.

Producers don't need to be banned from World First eligibility in order to reduce their (to be frank, huge) advantage over others. The 4 of every card mechanic they will have is not the same issue because everyone else are allowed to have 4 of every card. Don't get me wrong, if producers attempt raids seriously on day 1 then they will most likely be the first to complete them (unless of course something is done to prevent the huge advantage), but its not the same type of issue. This effect is also theoretically diminished in the future as other people will catch up in terms of what cards they have, while the RL bonus (which is included in the producer tier) will always be like playing with a bit more strength. You are essentially playing with 61 cards with 1 being in play from start (the Raid Leader card).

Lets compare this situation with what did not happen in PvP. The Pro Player Tier gives the player one free draft tournament per week. I don't find this unfair as I personally can play equally many draft tournaments as the Pro Player. If the Pro Player tier instead gave out exclusive stuff that only the Pro Players can use in a game, I would find it really unfair and I don't think I'm alone in that. Now, to be fair those exclusive stuff would most likely not be allowed in tournaments, but I would still consider that to be more unfair.


Every hex tournament is biased against people who didn't know about it and for people that did. Hell every competition is biased that way... Hell any prize is biased that way... I can't think of a single thing that isn't biased that way...

Could you clarify further on this because currently I'm just drawing a big blank over this whole text.
People who didn't know about the Hex tournament wouldn't be participating? How is the tournament biased against them? Did CZE specifically make sure those people didn't know about it?
How is prize biased? Is it different from person to person, or from backer tier to backer tier?
On the last one, wat?

Yoss
07-20-2013, 09:45 AM
I've added a bit and reordered, so the numbering changed. For reference:

Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Definition. Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game or CZE imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
Definition. External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not an internal constraint.
Definition. Account Bound: anything in the game you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to
Definition. "All potential competitors in Hex PVE" includes all players who might be active immediately before and during the time of a given competitive event, who might desire to compete in that event, and who may have joined at any time from Kickstarter through the day before the event starts.
Premise. The rules for acquiring account-bound game-altering exclusives are created and maintained by CZE.
Conclusion (1+5). The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
Premise. The rules for acquiring account-bound game-altering exclusives stipulate that each such exclusive is offerd for a limited time only and is thereafter unobtainable.
Conclusion (4+7). The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Premise. Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
Conclusion (8+9, logic accepted post 489, premises contested). Account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
Premise (accepted, post 489). The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Conclusion (10+11, logic accepted post 489, premises contested). The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.



I am not a fan of point 2, about how the ability to aquire account bound bonuses area internal constraint of pve. I don't think this can be taken for granted personally. If anything the entire problem seems to be that it is not internal to pve, if you could acquire these bonuses thorugh pve then i do not think you would have a problem with them(but don't let me put words in your mouth.)
Recall that my definition of internal constraint encompases more than the rules of the game (interpreted narrowly); it covers all things imposed by the game, which includes pretty much everything CZE does or sanctions in relation to the game. It's possible we need to clarify the definition more. Let me know if you have a better wording.

New Premise: "The rules for acquiring account-bound game-altering exclusives are created and maintained by CZE." (The will re-number things, which is generally a no-no, but I'm not sure of a good way around it given the limitation of vBulletin.)

The contested premise then becomes a conclusion from the new premise combined with the definition of Internal Constraint.


I am not a fan of point 3, its patently untrue. The ability to acquire bonuses is utterly equal. no one may aquire them, that's completely equal.

you make a logical leap in here about how the ability to acquire a bonus is the same as having that bonus. IF it was then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The ability to acquire a KS mercenary is different between a player who was aware of and joined during KS and a player who learns about and joins Hex after game launch. The former had opportunity, the latter did not. It may be a lack of definition on my part, so I've added another definition (what "all players" means) to my list above to clarify this point. Let me know if this premise can now be considered true.


that not withstanding.
point 4 would follow from 1,2,3 but 2 and 3 are questionable.
5 is a fact.
6 would follow form 4 and 5 but 4 is questionable(because 2 and 3 are)
Accpeted premise has been marked as such. Accepted logic marked, noting that conclusions are not valid without premises.


premise 2: the EULA does represent the totality of the constraints for obtaining the prize. People have argued that more constraints SHOULD be put on the prize, but those constraints are not currently ON the prize, so this statement is correct. If you complete the requirements of the achievement, you get the achievement unless you cheated. cheating is defined as violating the EULA.
There are more constraints. Using my definitions, everything in the set of internal constraints must be considered. For example, "it is a TCG", deckbuilding restrictions, keep structures, champion rules, etc, etc, etc. Your statement that there is a prize necessitates an enumeration of rules for attaining that prize. Not everyone who follows the EULA will get the prize, so there must be other limitations to discriminate between who does and does not get the prize.


premise 6:when i bought grand king, the kickstarter was on day 3. none of the tiers were maxed out and anyone whom wanted to pledge could(and many of you did). we all saw the exact same video, and we all read the same text. No discrimination occurred during the pledge drive aside from i believe people from out of the US having issues with amazon payments(not sure on this, i believe it was fixed ASAP)
When i pledged no one person could possibly have been excluded or discriminated against by the kickstarter and this continued to the end of kickstarter for both the producer and raid leader tiers. Now since the raid lead bonus came in at $250 there was a barrier to entry. It was however a unbiased barrier to entry, everyone who got it paid for it. no favorites or cheating(that i know of)
so then during the kick starter we can agree it was unbiased i hope.
the kickstarter ended, at the same time for everyone at the time it said it would. It practiced no discretion or favoritism. This is unbaised.
The slacker backer option does not offer anything we seem to be interested in here, so we can conclude the kickstarter and its distribution of tiers was unbiased since it favored no one. therich were given no advantage for simply being rich, the poor were not excluded from any offer by just being poor. They may not have been able to pay the asking price on those things, but they were OFFERED THEM and they REFUSED TO PAY. everyone saw the same stuff irregardless of race,gender or creed.
simply showing up late does not mean someone is acting in a way that is biased against you.
i am not saying it was equal, but it certainly tried its very best to be unbiased, honest and Just.
Having slept on it (and I didn't need to read your rebuttal, sorry you had to waste time on it), I would like to offer you the following. I will accept a reworded premise that says something like "those with RL obtained it fairly". I do not need to quibble over the wordings of the finely diced pieces you broke it up into. Your argument then has two Premises and one Conclusion. The second premise is "Anything obtained fairly is fair" or something like that. I've said before in this thread that the word "fair" is awkward to work with. I would like you to spell it out, or at least give a complete definition of what you mean it to signify. (I don't necessarily want a dictionary definition; I want what YOU define it as for the purposes of your argument.) I suspect that when you spell it out we will see that you must tie yourself back to the context of competition for the prize, which will bring up the question of fair competition again. In that case I will not agree, because it will conflict with the (contested) "competition must be fair" premise in my argument above. However, until you clarify I cannot be sure.

(Ran out of proofreading time, sorry if there are lingering errors.)

nicosharp
07-20-2013, 09:56 AM
If Cory has already stated:
#1 - They want to have items(like equipment) in the game be 'chasey'
#2 - Players have to make choices that will give them one or the other of something, not both. Meaning not everyone gets the same cards and mercenaries.
#3 - Exclusive cards and items from kickstarter are one time deals that have direct effects on the PvE game.

How are you going to change the inherent design of the game you have no control over?
This is what they want the game to be.
If there is world first achievements, bite your tongue and deal with the minor subtleties that make the game what it is. Be competitive on your own terms, where you think the game is fair, and where you feel you have even ground.

I am 100% positive someone without RL perk could get world first in a raid over someone with 1. It just takes tuning and knowledge of the game mechanics. It also takes leveling and abusing the right mercenary for that purpose.

The best suggestion I saw here to support 'carebear fair', is to have purchasable consumable buffs that allows someone to have the RL perk for a game.

Gwaer
07-20-2013, 10:05 AM
Could you clarify further on this because currently I'm just drawing a big blank over this whole text.
People who didn't know about the Hex tournament wouldn't be participating? How is the tournament biased against them? Did CZE specifically make sure those people didn't know about it?
How is prize biased? Is it different from person to person, or from backer tier to backer tier?
On the last one, wat?

It was a comment on Yoss closing argument above my post. He claimed there were biases for people who knew, and against people who didn't. That's a crazy assertion to make because it is true about every single thing we could talk about, it isn't a special case for obtaining the raid leader buff, people who don't know about hex tournaments until too late, can't get their entry sorted and compete, if they manage to get in they may not be properly prepared, if they want a prize in a draw that you can enter every day and don't find out until the last day, that is biased against them, if they don't find out about it until too late, they can't possible get it, so it's biased against them. It's a nonsensical argument to try to attach to any particular thing.

As to your questions about chess being perfectly balanced, what that means and the issues inherent in a perfectly balanced game I direct you to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w that I linked earlier.

@Yoss, I'm still waiting to hear your response on post 481 about how the game imposes everyone to start from a certain place, a set of PVP starter decks, except producers who get to START from a position of much more flexibility, with every possible card they would need to complete dungeons and raids. It's like giving only a few people a head start in a foot race. Since world firsts are much more a race than a tournament and these people get to start at the halfway point. That's as internal as it gets.

Kami
07-20-2013, 10:13 AM
The best suggestion I saw here to support 'carebear fair', is to have purchasable consumable buffs that allows someone to have the RL perk for a game.

While I like the idea in theory, when this type of micro-pay transaction system has been implemented in various F2P games, it always ends up turning into a Pay-to-Win situation. Those that don't purchase consumable buffs become woefully underpowered compared to those that do over the long-term.

As for the arguments about fairness and such, consider this:

1. New players that join the game a month and a half late. Should they have all the stuff older players have to be fair when competing for world firsts? Obviously not. This applies for those that missed the Kickstarter, etc. While yes, it does suck, but it does not prevent you from earning a world first. You're also assuming the majority of those with these bonuses can even pull off a world first or have intentions to.

2. The whole point of any MMORPG is to reach a goal with what you have and what you have earned. Even if two players start with identical resources and such, if one player got lucky with RNGs and the other didn't, would that still be fair?

3. This game has a huge amount of RNG (even considering just the cards the AI draws when you play against it), the fact of the matter is, it will never be 'fair'. In all cases, it will take the right types of people, the right types of cards, the right draws, etc. Everything would have to fall into place altogether.

Whether someone has an advantage or not does not mean you cannot compete or you are automatically going to lose. If playing games competitively (chess, CS, etc.) has taught me anything over my life... it's that it's never over until it's over. In chess, I've won games when I'm down to a single pawn. In CS, I've clutched a round when it turned out to be a 10v1 situation. Even in overwhelming odds (in this case, advantages) other players might have versus you, it does not mean you have no chance.

You are not competing against only the KS backers but everyone else as well when going for world firsts. And the other thing to note is that the vast majority of KS backers don't have any notable advantage.

[Note: I'm using world firsts as an example only.]

ShadowTycho
07-20-2013, 11:02 AM
2. The whole point of any MMORPG is to reach a goal with what you have and what you have earned. Even if two players start with identical resources and such, if one player got lucky with RNGs and the other didn't, would that still be fair?


I've said before in this thread that the word "fair" is awkward to work with. I would like you to spell it out, or at least give a complete definition of what you mean it to signify.


Something is fair if it is free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice
Something is free of injustice if it is Just.
Something is free from dishonesty if it is honest.
Something is free from bias if it is unbiased.
To be unbiased is to practice no discretion towards any one group or persons.
To be honest is to clearly state your intentions without obfuscation.
To be just is to act within moderation of both selfishness and selflessness


having written it out i feel this is a pretty good break down of fair, however people can literally argue about what justice is until time ends. so let me ad the caviate and say that in this context "just compensation"(oooo legal) means the payment you are willing to pay and the payment the seller is willing to accept, without duress.

in response to kami, yes that is fair. because it dosen't treat anyone equally or change the rng at random, you do the process demanded and get to roll the dice, but they are the same dice.


I've added a bit and reordered, so the numbering changed. For reference:
Please allow me to state it my way and let me know if it hangs together.
Definition. Internal Constraint: The rules of the game and anything that the game or CZE imposes as limitations on what players can and cannot do.
Definition. External Constraint: Any limitation that is or could be imposed on a player that is not an internal constraint.
Definition. Account Bound: anything in the game you can't trade regardless of what it's actually bound to
Definition. "All potential competitors in Hex PVE" includes all players who might be active immediately before and during the time of a given competitive event, who might desire to compete in that event, and who may have joined at any time from Kickstarter through the day before the event starts.
Premise. The rules for acquiring account-bound game-altering exclusives are created and maintained by CZE.
Conclusion (1+5). The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is an internal constraint for Hex PVE competition.
Premise. The rules for acquiring account-bound game-altering exclusives stipulate that each such exclusive is offerd for a limited time only and is thereafter unobtainable.
Conclusion (4+7). The ability to acquire account-bound game-altering exclusives is not equal for all potiential competitors in Hex PVE.
Premise. Worthwhile competition requires that all internal constraints be equalized for all potential competitors.
Conclusion (8+9, logic accepted post 489, premises contested). Account-bound game-altering exclusives must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.
Premise (accepted, post 489). The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries are account-bound game-altering exclusives.
Conclusion (10+11, logic accepted post 489, premises contested). The Raid Leader bonus and exclusive mercenaries must be excluded, or segregated, from whatever competitive PVE exists in order for that competitive PVE to be worthwhile.

Okay!
1+5 does not follow to 6, if cryptozoic created a pvp exclusive that was accountbound, It would meet 1 and 5 but not be 6, for it is a pvp exclusive and not a pve exclusive.
4+7 do not follow, The ability to acquire exclusives is differentiated from the ability to have them, so i can have my raid lead exclusive while no one can acquire it. If we take point 4 and point 7 and construe them then the opposite of 8 is true, since the ability to acquire turns off for all potential players at the same time, it at no point creates a situation where the ability to acquire is unequal. you still are making the jump that the ability to acquire something IS that something.
i can acquire spoons, i have spoons , my spoons are not my ability to acquire spoons.
all the rest of it i have accepted :P or given a pass for the sake of argument.

Hatts
07-20-2013, 11:05 AM
@kami It's been confirmed that there will be buffs for purchase from vendors, requiring gold not platinum. Considering that you get gold for playing it can't be considered pay to win. More discussion on possible buffs is in this thread: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25989

As a RL I am completely fine with others having access to an extra starting card or damage avoidance through a consumable buff. I think it's a good solution, and I am also fine with tracking them separately. I'm not sure why people aren't willing to compromise on this, I think people are too caught up in the argument and aren't looking for solutions.

Gwaer
07-20-2013, 11:15 AM
I'm fine with all manner of purchasable buffs. And for people that use them to having a shot at the general world first achievement.

ShadowTycho
07-20-2013, 11:16 AM
This is a great suggestion, honestly and very time it gets brought up someone links back to the first time it was suggested and then continues the argument. I honestly expect this is what will be implemented.

Unhurtable
07-21-2013, 02:07 AM
If Cory has already stated:
#1 - They want to have items(like equipment) in the game be 'chasey'
#2 - Players have to make choices that will give them one or the other of something, not both. Meaning not everyone gets the same cards and mercenaries.
#3 - Exclusive cards and items from kickstarter are one time deals that have direct effects on the PvE game.

How are you going to change the inherent design of the game you have no control over?
This is what they want the game to be.
If there is world first achievements, bite your tongue and deal with the minor subtleties that make the game what it is. Be competitive on your own terms, where you think the game is fair, and where you feel you have even ground.

I am 100% positive someone without RL perk could get world first in a raid over someone with 1. It just takes tuning and knowledge of the game mechanics. It also takes leveling and abusing the right mercenary for that purpose.

The best suggestion I saw here to support 'carebear fair', is to have purchasable consumable buffs that allows someone to have the RL perk for a game.

#2 Nobody is talking about people "getting both".
#3 These direct effects (at least RL as far as we know) will have no effect on the PvE tournaments. So they are breaking their own rule in your case since these direct effects do not work on 100% of the PvE experience.

I guess you would say the same if the Pro Player tier got exclusive PvP cards? Just bite your tongue and deal with the minor subtleties that make the game what it is. Be competitive on your own terms.


It was a comment on Yoss closing argument above my post. He claimed there were biases for people who knew, and against people who didn't. That's a crazy assertion to make because it is true about every single thing we could talk about, it isn't a special case for obtaining the raid leader buff, people who don't know about hex tournaments until too late, can't get their entry sorted and compete, if they manage to get in they may not be properly prepared, if they want a prize in a draw that you can enter every day and don't find out until the last day, that is biased against them, if they don't find out about it until too late, they can't possible get it, so it's biased against them. It's a nonsensical argument to try to attach to any particular thing.

As to your questions about chess being perfectly balanced, what that means and the issues inherent in a perfectly balanced game I direct you to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w that I linked earlier.

@Yoss, I'm still waiting to hear your response on post 481 about how the game imposes everyone to start from a certain place, a set of PVP starter decks, except producers who get to START from a position of much more flexibility, with every possible card they would need to complete dungeons and raids. It's like giving only a few people a head start in a foot race. Since world firsts are much more a race than a tournament and these people get to start at the halfway point. That's as internal as it gets.

Right, now I see. Yes then I would agree that the purchasing of the RL bonus was not biased

I love extra credits but I'm having issues with the video 2 minutes in. In Starcraft 1, it did not become a action game at its highest level. Did you need high amounts of mechanical ability to play Starcraft 1 at high level? Yes. The game still involved great amounts of strategy, such as faking builds, playing unconventional units and sudden all-ins. To say that high-level starcraft 1 was "an action game" is just plain false.
"The beautiful thing about perfect-imbalance is that it creates a metagame, an evolving state of play that keeps any one playstyle from being definitively correct, which in turn allows the players to experiment different approaches to the game".
This video upon reading this seems very unresearched. LoL has had about the most stale metagames in recent history. The game has been 1 Sustainer/Ranged Harasser Top, 1 Caster Mid, Supp + Ranged Carry and 1 jungler for almost the games entire lifespan. In the beta, this "evolving metagame" took place. The game changed about every 2 months. But these days, the dev team is forcing this one playstyle by nerfing and buffing things to fit it.
Secondly, the reason Chess and Starcraft become so "stale" is because nothing new is added to them. If you were to take LoL and not implement new stuff for 2 years, you would also see the playstyle becoming stale, because the entire game is balanced around one playstyle. If we take DotA as a better example, DotA has been very conservative in terms of patching these last few years, with balance patches usually coming far apart and being huge instead. Between these patches, the metagame of DotA has changed more than once, because of almost how the game is balanced in a circle. Teamfight beats hardpushing, splitpush beats teamfight, farming strat beats splitpush, hardpushing beats farming strat. If one of these strategies takes hold, those who practice the counter-strat well enough start to slowly change how all the other pro-teams play. To be fair overtime this "circle" stales because one of these 4 "big strategies" turns out to be more efficient than the other, but this usually doesn't happen because the big balance patches throw most strategies on the rocks.

Add a new expansion to starcraft 1 and almost all the "etched in stone" strategies would go out the window. The "perfect imbalance" metagame only evolves because new stuff is added to the game.

League of Legends doesn't have this "cyclical imbalance" when it comes to the playstyle of the game. It only (even only to a certain degree) has it when it comes to champions. Most champions that "lots of people start to play because its 'overpowered'" are nerfed before the player base has a chance to figure out the actual counter-strategy.


While I like the idea in theory, when this type of micro-pay transaction system has been implemented in various F2P games, it always ends up turning into a Pay-to-Win situation. Those that don't purchase consumable buffs become woefully underpowered compared to those that do over the long-term.

As for the arguments about fairness and such, consider this:

1. New players that join the game a month and a half late. Should they have all the stuff older players have to be fair when competing for world firsts? Obviously not. This applies for those that missed the Kickstarter, etc. While yes, it does suck, but it does not prevent you from earning a world first. You're also assuming the majority of those with these bonuses can even pull off a world first or have intentions to.

2. The whole point of any MMORPG is to reach a goal with what you have and what you have earned. Even if two players start with identical resources and such, if one player got lucky with RNGs and the other didn't, would that still be fair?

3. This game has a huge amount of RNG (even considering just the cards the AI draws when you play against it), the fact of the matter is, it will never be 'fair'. In all cases, it will take the right types of people, the right types of cards, the right draws, etc. Everything would have to fall into place altogether.

Whether someone has an advantage or not does not mean you cannot compete or you are automatically going to lose. If playing games competitively (chess, CS, etc.) has taught me anything over my life... it's that it's never over until it's over. In chess, I've won games when I'm down to a single pawn. In CS, I've clutched a round when it turned out to be a 10v1 situation. Even in overwhelming odds (in this case, advantages) other players might have versus you, it does not mean you have no chance.

You are not competing against only the KS backers but everyone else as well when going for world firsts. And the other thing to note is that the vast majority of KS backers don't have any notable advantage.

[Note: I'm using world firsts as an example only.]

0. You are assuming that the buffs will be bought with platinum when they could be bought with the PvE currency gold. This would not turn it into a "Pay-To-Win" scenario.

1. Nobody in this thread has argued "its impossible to get a world first without the RL buff" because that is simply false. New players still enter a fair playing field as they have the same options to acquire cards (and skill) that other players have, except for the stuff that cannot be acquired anymore. Its not fair to have some people enter the race late and start at the same position of the other players who were there on time.

2. Are both players affected by the same RNG? Then it could be argued that its fair. Both players have the same chance of having the "lucky RNG" happen to them. Would I argue that it fits into something that is supposed to differentiate between two peoples skill-level in a game or sport? No.

3. As I said in 2, it could be argued that as long as the RNG applies to everyone (as it does in the example you provided) it is fair.

Nobody ever said that they "cannot compete or is automatically going to lose" because someone else has the RL buff. Yes you are going to compete against everyone attempting to do world firsts, which will most likely include those without an RL buff. Just as you could be saying "When playing in the world championship of football, you are competing against every other country that wants it". That doesn't mean Poland starting with 1 additional score every game makes the competition fair within the rules of the game.

Shadowelf
07-21-2013, 06:16 AM
The best suggestion I saw here to support 'carebear fair', is to have purchasable consumable buffs that allows someone to have the RL perk for a game.

Thank you nico :)


While I like the idea in theory, when this type of micro-pay transaction system has been implemented in various F2P games, it always ends up turning into a Pay-to-Win situation. Those that don't purchase consumable buffs become woefully underpowered compared to those that do over the long-term.


Actually what i suggested at that post was 'consumable craftable buff'. This means that given the time and resources you can craft one 'potion of RL blessing' (don't know if it will be a potion-naming for the shake of argument) yourself and not be entirely dependant on the AH; Also since RL is a pve buff/perk it will most probably sell for gold so no pay to win scenarios. In addition the potion buff as a consumable that you have to craft/buy is better than not having the buff at all assuming that RL buff turns out to be necessary and given the rarity of the KS perk