A little something about "mastery"

Sidey wrote:

My changes are based on the idea of mastery - that every single change that increases the difference between a skilled and a non-skilled player across both teams and the entire map should be added.

First of all, this description of mastery is highly invalid. Just adding everything that requires "mastery" does not neccesary increase the difference between a "a skilled and a non-skilled" player. You see there are an infinite number of masteries to which different people are differently talented at. If this wasnt the case the same person would win in every sport, at least if we assumed everyone practiced equally much in every sport. Person A can perhaps master running better than person B who on the other hand master highjumping better than person A. But with your logic a sport that included both highjumping and running would make lead to a bigger difference between A and B than just running. Without clearifying what kind of mastery you want added and what value it has to the game this rational is not only emtpy as it fails to explain why we just dont play ladder, dota or CS instead where the "mastery" and "difference between a pro and a noob" is much larger than in sheep tag. This kind of reasoning also risk leading sheep tag down to a path where the difference between a good player and a bad is actually smaller. If we dont ask ourself what makes sheep tag special, and improve that, and instead use Sideys logic where something is added as long as it adds "mastery" we will end up with rots 2.0.

What we should focus on are the elements we know and love about sheep tag. The element that TODAY actually makes a difference between a pro and a noob, elements that are not random but rewards experience, talent and practice. Elements such as map-awareness, runtag, speedmassing. Elements of mastery that fills other functions than just rewarding skill, they actually make the game entertaining. Elements that have kept sheep tag alive for almost 10 years and have lead to a somewhat unique community. If we want to improve sheep tag we should give more room and more reward to the masteries we know and love, we shouldnt strive to marginalize them.

Football (soccer) isnt the worlds biggest sport beacause it is the sport that offers most different masteries. Infact it offers very few masteries, but the masteries it do offers it rewards better than any other sport in the world.

Adding mastery is alone NOT a sufficient argument for ANYTHING in sheep tag. There are other dimensions we need to take into account. We need to ask ourself why we want that element of mastery in sheep tag. Once we analyzed that, THEN the argument about mastery becomes interesting. Beacause we must not only strive to find the elements of mastery that are entertaining to practice, we must also strive to give them more room and higher reward.

I agree mostly. At least it's infinitely wiser than deceiving sidey nonsense.

Sounds good Shoop.

I didn't understand a word of it but it sounds good (after reading the post 4-5 times!).

If anyone thinks there are any relevant arguments in the opening post it'd be nice if you would translate them into something coherent.

Guess he wanted to say that we should advance existing mastery instead of adding new mastery (new mastery only then should be added if it gives advancement to already existing mastery)
existing masteries f.e. are map-awareness, runtag, speedmassing

And something like that the game sheep tag is not about creating more and more masteries, but mastering existing masteries.
Reason: masteries as we know them in the game made the game fun.
Conclusion: Analyse existing masteries and advance those.


I don't know if that is what he's trying to achieve and I jsut tried to understand/sum up what he said.
I don't have a position in this topic yet.

I love how Sidey is the only one who even expressed problems with understanding it, and he doesnt understand anything.


...or maybe, he just realize he is completley stripped of arguments in the sheep tag debate. But yeah drew if you feel like it, it would be great if you could write it in better english.

Quote :

Guess he wanted to say that we should advance existing mastery instead of adding new mastery (new mastery only then should be added if it gives advancement to already existing mastery)
existing masteries f.e. are map-awareness, runtag, speedmassing

And something like that the game sheep tag is not about creating more and more masteries, but mastering existing masteries.
Reason: masteries as we know them in the game made the game fun.
Conclusion: Analyse existing masteries and advance those.


I don't know if that is what he's trying to achieve and I jsut tried to understand/sum up what he said.
I don't have a position in this topic yet.

This I understand even though I don't see the point.

I argue for more mastery - I don't discriminate the form it comes in.

I also doubt that this was really Shoop's argument O_O?

Sidey wrote:

I argue for more mastery - I don't discriminate the form it comes in.

And I am arguing against this.

Not discriminating the form mastery comes in reduces the difference between "skilled" and "unskilled" players, we lose the dimension of entertainment in the discussion and arguing for mastery alone fails to explain what sets sheep tag apart from other games. If we just aim for mastery, why dont we just play DotA instead?

I've argued that we should make sheep tag more like DOTA since 2007. Keeping the core of what defines the game and adding on any type of mastery makes the map better.

I think if you want to make yourself understood you should present a simple argument such as

Premise 1
Premise 2
Conclusion

and not give me a long-winded paragraph that I have absolutely zero hope of understanding.

Some of the all-time dumbest players on bnet can understand my argument about mastery. If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide something that is understandable.

Sidey, seeing as everyone except you understands what I mean I think I am doing ok.

Also, you say you want to add "any kind of mastery that makes the map better". What do you mean with masteries that makes the map better? What separates them from other masteries?

shoops runner-jumper analogy is huge turd anyway, and his whole ''rebuttal of the mastery argument'' is derived from it. it makes two incorrect assumptions:

assumption 1: talent is limited and doesn't apply to different types of masteries.
assumption 2: rewarding different types of masteries sometimes make the skill-difference between good and bad players smaller.

Quote :

Person A can perhaps master running better than person B who on the other hand master highjumping better than person A. But with your logic a sport that included both highjumping and running would make lead to a bigger difference between A and B than just running.

you forgot to add person C in the equation person A is good at running, Person B is good at jumping, Person C is good at both. with running being the only criteria, you have A = C > B. by adding jumping, it would be C > A = B, and eventually C > A > B(if A has more talent than B and can master jumping while B can't master running) or C > B > A (if B can get good at running while A can't get good at jumping). OVERALL DIFFERENCE INCREASES.

shoops logic assumes that the players that are good at ST today are the ones with the most talent, thus by adding forexample the stack, people like beeeh/cmk get closer in performance to people like shoop, hence the difference in skill is smaller. this is backwards logic. the reality is that by addition of masteries, the difference between TRUE talent and PERCEPTIVE talent gets bigger. there might be a smaller difference in performance between some people who are considered good and others who are considered bad, but ultimately the difference between people with ALOT of talent and people with LITTLE/NO talent will always increase with addition of more masteries. talent is not limited to a certain skill but it covers a big range of skills. this is why trollpro can never beat me at any game on wc3 if we practice equally much - because i have more talent. BINGO!!!!

in other words, replace "running" with massing and "jumping" with runtag, and assume that we have a map where massing is the only relevant strategy. shoop makes the case that adding runtag as a strategy will decrease the difference between a player that is good at massing(but sucks at runtag) and a player that is great at runtag(but sucks at massing). well, DOH? but it will also make the difference BIGGER between me(who is good at massing AND runtag) and the other two, as opposed to making me perform equally well as the ''massing player'' despite having more overall talent.




also lol @ ''why dont we play ladder, dota, or CS where the mastery is much larger than in ST". gj comparing ST to games that are 1000 times more active/popular and attribute it to the increase those games have in mastery compared to ST.. btw, im mainly thinking about stacks/invis here. certain masteries can get in the way of others ofc, and then its debatable.

I don't think anyone understands what you're saying and it's your loss - not mine.

I cannot make sense of it whatsoever.

I think you need to rephrase everything.

You can keep maintaining that everyone gets it apart from me but that is laughable!

Quote :

Also, you say you want to add "any kind of mastery that makes the map better". What do you mean with masteries that makes the map better? What separates them from other masteries?

Any kind of mastery makes the map better.

Effloresce wrote:

I don't think anyone understands what you're saying and it's your loss - not mine.

I cannot make sense of it whatsoever.

I think you need to rephrase everything.

You can keep maintaining that everyone gets it apart from me but that is laughable!

Quote :

Also, you say you want to add "any kind of mastery that makes the map better". What do you mean with masteries that makes the map better? What separates them from other masteries?

Any kind of mastery makes the map better.

Then lets add hook , mirana arrow and torrent in de game let de mastery begin!!

yeeee but hook shud only hook like 3 farms closer to the wolf (not sheep) to make the way free for other sheps, or it can hook wisps
arrow shud have 2 sec delay b4, pretty much like the rifle in 1way!

Quote :

Then lets add hook , mirana arrow and torrent in de game let de mastery begin!!

Then provide justification for this.

Tell us how any of these add mastery across both teams and the entire map.

Only someone who doesn't at all understand the argument would say something like this.

None of these add mastery in their current dota forms. If you can think of modifications then lets hear them.

Amir wrote:

shoops runner-jumper analogy is huge turd anyway, and his whole ''rebuttal of the mastery argument'' is derived from it. it makes two incorrect assumptions:

assumption 1: talent is limited and doesn't apply to different types of masteries.
assumption 2: rewarding different types of masteries sometimes make the skill-difference between good and bad players smaller.

Wrong.

My assumption is that just beacause person A "master" one thing twice as good as person B that doesnt mean person A master everything twice as good as person B. Given this assumption, which I think most people agree with, you know your description of mastery is incorrect. It is not true that adding more masteries increases the skilldifference. What happends when you add more masteries is that you make the game fit the players who are good at the masteries you add better.

For instance by adding stack people who are relativly good at stack compared to other "masteries" will become better. But that doesnt mean we will see a bigger skilldifference.

Also Amir, what do you mean with "true talent".

Amir wrote:

also lol @ ''why dont we play ladder, dota, or CS where the mastery is much larger than in ST". gj comparing ST to games that are 1000 times more active/popular and attribute it to the increase those games have in mastery compared to ST.. btw, im mainly thinking about stacks/invis here. certain masteries can get in the way of others ofc, and then its debatable.

You dont answer my question. If the only thing important in a map is "mastery" why do you play st if it has so little "mastery" compared to Ladder?

Sidey
What is the problem with adding a Mirana-arrow? It is obviously a mastery, it takes skill to use and according to you "any kind of mastery makes the map better".

it doesn't matter if person A is twice as good as person B or not with the addition of another mastery. the mastery argument is NOT that the people who are good at ST now will be twice as good as the people who are less skilled by adding masteries. the whole rebuttal falls apart when you add person C; who is talented at a wide range of skills. the argument is that people who are talented will be better than less talented people with addition of mastery.

i already explained this with my massing vs runtag analogy. adding runtag wont make the masser TWICE as good as the runtagger, but it will make person C twice as good as the masser(who would be equally good as the masser if the only criteria was massing DESPITE person C having more talent).

you are attacking a position which noone holds: that adding masteries will make someone whos good at massing twice as good as someone whos good at runtag by adding more elements of runtag. this is an insane position. the position people do hold, however, is: a person whos skilled at massing AND runtag will shine more by adding more element of runtag, as opposed to having only massing in the map.

as for the talent...obviously is covers a wide set of masteries. this is(and i repeat again) why trollpro will never beat me at any wc3 game if we practice equally much - cus i have more talent than him.





1) adding mastery will ALWAYS lead to more talented people performing better than less talented people
2) talent(in videogames especially) covers a wide range of skillsets, its not limited to only a certain skillset.

BooYaH

Quote :

You dont answer my question. If the only thing important in a map is "mastery" why do you play st if it has so little "mastery" compared to Ladder?

Entirely for social reasons.

Quote :

What is the problem with adding a Mirana-arrow? It is obviously a mastery, it takes skill to use and according to you "any kind of mastery makes the map better".

It doesn't increase the differences between a skilled and a non-skilled player across both teams & the entire map.

For example, 6 wolves with arrows against an isolated sheep does not increase the above.

For example, not being able to expand on any side for fear of arrows does not increase the above.

If it could be made and modified to increase differences I would be for adding it.

Quote :

i already explained this with my massing vs runtag analogy. adding runtag wont make the masser TWICE as good as the runtagger, but it will make person C twice as good as the masser(who would be equally good as the masser if the only criteria was massing DESPITE person C having more talent).

I'd argue only about 41% better.

Sidey wrote:

It doesn't increase the differences between a skilled and a non-skilled player across both teams & the entire map.

What do you mean with across both teams and the entire map?

Can you explain why invis does it?

Amir wrote:

i already explained this with my massing vs runtag analogy. adding runtag wont make the masser TWICE as good as the runtagger, but it will make person C twice as good as the masser(who would be equally good as the masser if the only criteria was massing DESPITE person C having more talent).

What do you mean with "more talent" and why should we award this? Lets add person D. He is slightly worse at both runtag and massing as C, but a LOT more talented in mirana-arrow. Is he "more talented" then?

Amir wrote:

you are attacking a position which noone holds: that adding masteries will make someone whos good at massing twice as good as someone whos good at runtag by adding more elements of runtag. this is an insane position. the position people do hold, however, is: a person whos skilled at massing AND runtag will shine more by adding more element of runtag, as opposed to having only massing in the map.

No, I am attacking the position you and sidey holds, that adding any kind of mastery makes the map better.

Amir wrote:

2) talent(in videogames especially) covers a wide range of skillsets, its not limited to only a certain skillset.

What is talent in videogames? Different people are differently talented in different videogames. Some are better in strategy, some are better in FPS, some are better in fightinggames, some are better in cargames. Does this mean we should aim to mash all the masteries required in all of these games into sheep tag in order to reward some form of "highest avarege talent in all videogames there is"?

Quote :

What do you mean with across both teams and the entire map?

Can you explain why invis does it?

Invis requires insane mastery to use and and insane mastery to dodge (with my suggested modifications). It also doesn't take away mastery from other aspects of the game.

Something like the mirana arrow ruins game-play and subsequently takes away mastery since:

*Any sort of runtag is ruined because of the arrows
*Any sort of expanding along the same side a wolf is on is ruined
*Any sort of isolationist play is ruined because of the above.

Can arrows go between farms? Do farms block them? It doesn't really matter because mastery is still reduced.

With my suggested modifications there is zero similarity between the two.

Quote :

*Any sort of runtag is ruined because of the arrows

What do you mean its ruined? Its harder beacause you have to dodge arrows, but you can obviously still runtag.

Quote :

*Any sort of expanding along the same side a wolf is on is ruined

This is simply not true, a skilled sheep can easily expand and dodge any dangerous Mirana-arrows.

Quote :

*Any sort of isolationist play is ruined because of the above.

What is "isolationist play" and why is it ruined?

Arrows can obviously go through farms just like they do in DotA.

Mirana-arrow requires mastery to use and mastery to dodge, do you seriously disagree with this?

Also, what do you mean when you say something takes away mastery from other aspects of the game? Can you give an example of this?

what is shoop talking about? quote me saying that any mastery will improve the map/make the map better.




shuupie, imagine that you take all the food IN DE WORLD which you enjoy. candy, kebab, piggie-ribs, icecream..list goes on. you take all of this, and SMASH it into one pile, mix it in a blender, and eat it. do you think the taste will be good or bad?

this doesn't mean that you wont put chocolate sauce on ice-cream to improve the taste, nor does it mean that drinking coke next to the icecream makes the experience worse.

lol

Shoop what is you don't understand?

Mastery has nothing to do with how difficult something is.

It only has to do with differences between players.

Bumping the terrain significantly makes everything harder but reduces mastery.

Sick of arguing this baby-stuff. It's almost impossible to understand what you mean and then you say horse-shit.

Sidey
I havent claimed to understand any of your arguments, that is why I ask these questions. Since you are unable to answer them and instead try to undermine my credability I can only assume you dont understand the meaning of them either.

But Ill give you one more chance.

How do you mean invis effects the "difference of players" in a way that Mirana-arrow wouldnt?

Amir
I havent argued that we shouldnt add any mastery either, Ive argued that we shouldnt add mastery just beacause it is mastery. But you disagree with Sidey then? You dont think any kind of mastery that makes the map better?

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

shoops runner-jumper analogy is huge turd anyway, and his whole ''rebuttal of the mastery argument'' is derived from it. it makes two incorrect assumptions:

assumption 1: talent is limited and doesn't apply to different types of masteries.
assumption 2: rewarding different types of masteries sometimes make the skill-difference between good and bad players smaller.

Quote :

Person A can perhaps master running better than person B who on the other hand master highjumping better than person A. But with your logic a sport that included both highjumping and running would make lead to a bigger difference between A and B than just running.

you forgot to add person C in the equation person A is good at running, Person B is good at jumping, Person C is good at both. with running being the only criteria, you have A = C > B. by adding jumping, it would be C > A = B, and eventually C > A > B(if A has more talent than B and can master jumping while B can't master running) or C > B > A (if B can get good at running while A can't get good at jumping). OVERALL DIFFERENCE INCREASES.

shoops logic assumes that the players that are good at ST today are the ones with the most talent, thus by adding forexample the stack, people like beeeh/cmk get closer in performance to people like shoop, hence the difference in skill is smaller. this is backwards logic. the reality is that by addition of masteries, the difference between TRUE talent and PERCEPTIVE talent gets bigger. there might be a smaller difference in performance between some people who are considered good and others who are considered bad, but ultimately the difference between people with ALOT of talent and people with LITTLE/NO talent will always increase with addition of more masteries. talent is not limited to a certain skill but it covers a big range of skills. this is why trollpro can never beat me at any game on wc3 if we practice equally much - because i have more talent. BINGO!!!!

in other words, replace "running" with massing and "jumping" with runtag, and assume that we have a map where massing is the only relevant strategy. shoop makes the case that adding runtag as a strategy will decrease the difference between a player that is good at massing(but sucks at runtag) and a player that is great at runtag(but sucks at massing). well, DOH? but it will also make the difference BIGGER between me(who is good at massing AND runtag) and the other two, as opposed to making me perform equally well as the ''massing player'' despite having more overall talent.




also lol @ ''why dont we play ladder, dota, or CS where the mastery is much larger than in ST". gj comparing ST to games that are 1000 times more active/popular and attribute it to the increase those games have in mastery compared to ST.. btw, im mainly thinking about stacks/invis here. certain masteries can get in the way of others ofc, and then its debatable.

Dude im quite tired of u comparing me to your talent, yes u learn faster but that doesent mean i cannot get as good as u, its just a matter of practising, i have proved with will that i can get the best runtagger, why is it different with mass? i just dont got the same will and understanding for mass as i got for rt cause i am a flameable, not you. if u disagree please tell me.