Discussion in 'Game Alterations' started by KarmaCallama, Sep 24, 2019.
Like you know anything about "tactics" you have almost 20 times as many losses as wins.
I don't think smash crystals should be removed because they really help late-game when players are up against players with 3-4 lives whilst only having 1-2 them self, which is completely game changing if the weaker players get the crystal, which is a great tactic.
Have a great day!
...which is exactly why people want them removed. It’s unfair and not fun for the player that should have the advantage.
Imo, buff the underpowered smash crystals (zombie etc) or nerf the "op" crystals, such as skeleton.
Yes, that’s probably the ideal option, but if you’ve at the lack of game balance updates, it’s probably more ideal in this situation to just remove them. Saves the developer’s time and at the same time balances the game.
Name checks out
Wdym no reward? My post was referring to players being "rewarded" for skill rather than handouts. The reward is that if you are more skilled, you win. Or at least that's how I, and many others feel it should be.
And it's not that their opinion doesn't matter, it's that someone with little to no experience's opinion should not be given the same weight as someone who is "proficient" in said subject. I do not belong to any "gang", I'm just a solo casual player who plays rather frequently. And I'm not going to pretend to know or care about every little logical fallacy that I may or may not have committed, but that doesn't change the fact that smash crystals are unbalanced, unfair, and not fun for anyone who has the misfortune of playing against them.
That is not a reward, that's an objective. Winning the game is the one and only objective, by utilising every game mechanics within the game, regardless of the means, and within the rules. Rewards are what you get for achieving the objective. The game clearly rewards the most xp, gems, and shards for players who achieved the objective: winning. Those are actual rewards, not some abstract ideals.
That is literally the genetic fallacy. Just because they are inexperienced doesn't invalidate their opinions. We all share the game and their input is as much valid as yours. We judge by numbers, no "experience". You should care about logical fallacies. If you don't care about it, then it's safe to say that you're not arguing logically. Also, we're not discussing about the crystals themself, we already know the facts. We're discussing about the removal of the crystals. Get your arguments straight.
man i forgot to make some popcorn for this fight
This is the thing. Your claim a player that is inexperienced's opinion is just as valuable as one who has been playing consistently for a long time. I disagree.
My hypothesis is players who play more tend to be better at the game. These players are then less likely to like smash crystals. As these players also play more, they are more valuable to ssm. Someone who plays ssm 2 hours every day of the week is going to be contributing to the player count of ssm more frequently than a guy that logs on to ssm once a month. As the supporters of smash crystals are correlated with playing more, even if they are smaller or equal in number, have greater influence over the player count of ssm.
I do not have precise data to back up my hypothesis, it could be made and most likely lead to what I am saying. You can survey it if you want to.
Hmm you don't seem to understand that rewards can be abstract. Got a 100 on a hard test? Sure, you are rewarded with a nice 100, but you were rewarded for your knowledge and you feel satisfied. That's the abstract reward @PapiKirito is trying to convey.
This is not the genetic fallacy. There are exceptions and those exceptions are huge. One of those exceptions is having a distorted reality. Because inexperienced players don't not understand the game very much and have limited experience, their opinions are probably less valid than those of experienced players. This isn't a fallacy, but simple logic. Do you want school teachers to design the infrastructure of buildings? No, because they aren't qualified and know little to nothing about that. Because they are teachers, their opinions on infrastructure design are not valid.
Sure, we know that smash crystals statistically give you a much higher chance of winning and that should be the only reason needed to remove them. Yeah, the "oh i need them so i have a chance to win" or "they are fun to use" are all just "experience" based reasonings, or anecdotal. So according to you, if we are going by statistics, smash crystals should be removed.
Then the burden of proof is on you.
Getting 100 on a hard test should be every student's objective, not a reward. That's why our Asian parents say "If you got 100 marks, we'll give you something. If you didn't get 100 marks, you got nothing".
Less valid does not mean invalid. And just because teachers don't have a qualification in civil engineering doesn't mean that their input to the design have no shred of truth.
By your logic, Spider kit should be removed because Spider kit mains have a significantly higher chance of winning. That is why I judge by the number of players, not "experience" or game mechanics.
this is the exact same debate as items, smash balls/meter, and Hero in Smash and so it deserves the exact same answer - RNG and gimmicks like smash crystals and items in smash bros HEAVILY reward bad players for... being in the right place at the right time i guess? good players don't need them to win because they're skilled. crystals wouldn't be nearly as complained about if they were all as terrible as zombie's, but the fact is some are capable of taking multiple lives off a single person which is just ridiculous. rewarding bad players for being bad is never a good idea within games that can be played competitively / have obvious differences between the skill floor and ceiling. ideally we would have "casual" ssm (the standard gamemode we have today) and "competitive", or "for glory" or "ranked" or whatever the hell you wanna call it (1v1, maybe decrease the lives to 3, have an elo system, remove crystals, etc.) but that'll never happen because mineplex has all of what, 2 or 3 java devs these days? nevermind that they're never tasked with patching and balancing the og games that made MP what it is today
--- Post updated ---
while it's true that literally just picking spider in the hub gives you an immense advantage before the game even starts, a good player can do something about it even with a mid or low-tier character if they're skilled enough to pull it off.
the difference is, there is nothing even the best player can do against someone who essentially hits the god mode button for nearly 30 seconds besides pray that their router explodes
By your reasoning, we might as well have no skill, every ability will be a one hit mega explosion reign of death , cuz some casuals would find that "cool" at least in the short term.
I think you are getting waaaay too hung up on terminology rather than the actual substance of my point. That said, I believe @leo_thya addressed your post adequately so I won't add on to that.
And my argument has always been, and always will be, that smash crystals are an unbalanced mechanic that ruins gameplay, and as such should be removed. If you have a good reason for them to stay other than "I like them", I'd love to hear it.
What. That wasn't even my point. My point was that there are such things as abstract rewards, such as the feeling of satisfaction after achieving something.
Correct, less valid does not mean invalid, but that does not mean it should be weighted the same or more than an opinion that has actual substance to back up the claim.
It's not about the truth, it's about whether or not they are qualified to give their opinions on something they know little to nothing about. You wouldn't want anybody to be working in a position they aren't qualified for, and that's the point being made. Inexperienced players don't know the game well enough to form a valid opinion. And just because they are inexperienced, doesn't mean that I automatically disregard their opinion; I still read them and respond to them, but I know that the opinion is built on inexperience.
Kits and smash crystals are two different things and I think we can all agree that the kits are waaay more important than smash crystals. Kits are made to be balanced, and game features, if bad, are to be removed. It would be best for both to be balanced, but like previously said, with limited dev power, the ideal option is to remove the smash crystals. Kits are a vital part of the game and removing them because they are unbalanced is silly. On the other hand, smash crystals are an unnecessary feature. Smash crystals give a much higher chance of winning, and they take no skill to get great value out of. Spider actually does require skill to be effective.
Fine. I can agree to the existence of intrinsic rewards.
Weight doesn't matter, the number on the polls do and currently the number for pro-crystals is higher than anti-crystals. If you want a discussion where ONLY "qualified" players can give input, then I'm afraid that this isn't the place you're looking for. Go organise some elitist meeting table and get your echo chamber there to come up with an obviously biased poll.
Since you mentioned limited dev power, might as well leave it as it is instead of bothering to remove or balance them. After all, it's not necessary to remove them. You could say they're unbalanced all you want, but the player count for SSM isn't dropping to oblivion so there's no grounds for the removal of crystals to be considered necessary yet.
I think blaze smash would be a-ok if they reduced the particles on the smash
Ok let's see you try to attempt any sort of project, take everyone's opinions as the same; regardless of expertise, and then just stick with whatever the masses say. I guarantee that unless they defer to an experts knowledge, whatever you are trying to do will be sub-par at best. And yes I know that sounds elitist, but who's generally going to have a more accurate take on the state of Mexico, a Mexican or someone who vacations in Cancun every few years? Yes, everyone should get an opinion, and yes everyone's opinion should be considered. But you need to take someone who lacks experience's point of view with a grain of salt, because frankly, it's often just uninformed.
And you still haven't told us why you think they should be kept. We have given you our reasons for why they should be removed/balanced (Unbalanced, handout wins, unfair to those who play better), yet so far all I see is you nitpick terminology and potential fallacies without addressing the actual point: if you disagree, why should they stay? So far the only argument for keeping them I've seen is "well I like to use them" which imo is insufficient for keeping something so broken.
And just because the player count hasn't crashed doesn't mean something isn't wrong with the game. Plenty of games have bad/OP mechanics that are not exactly game ruining, but make the game less fun nonetheless. Not enough to make people quit, but enough to annoy. So they fix those mechanics. By your logic, because the playerbase hasn't declined, would that mean the kits are fine and balanced as they are?
I'm skipping the tangetial stuff. Sub-par or less valid, their opinion may not matter, but their opinion counts. If you want opinions that matter, bring it to the elitist round table and have your discussion there, not here flexing on the casuals for being peasants. End of story.
I never argued that there isn't anything wrong with the game and I'm not going to repeat myself again. Read my previous response until you fully understood it. If you've had fully understood it, you wouldn't be asking about it again.
Wrong. By my logic, because the playerbase hasn't declined, there are no grounds for the removal of crystals to be necessary. Also, don't strawman the subject from crystals to the kits.