Quote from Externus

Anything valid? Chess can be a sport while E-Sports remain non-sports. You. Are you okay? Like I literally, just had a paragraph explaining this, with no extra walls of text or any anti-reading impetuses, and you still...





alright.

I'm not against reading, I'm against massive posts that don't clearly and concisely make their point.

Also, I've been following this thread since page two, I've definitely read it. Maybe if you could more clearly state your opinions on matters, I could understand them more easily?

This is actually a legitimate debate, I just don't know why you guys get so mad

We were actually making legit points. Here, I'll repost mine.

>Implying that wouldn't affect professional gaming

Steroids in football = Adderall in gaming
Bribes would remain the same
home field advantage is whatever

I'm talking about exploits like optimizing a game in ways you can't in real life. In professional Halo 2, you'll notice that B+X+RT resulted in players being killed immediately when they touched another player.

It was an exploit that allowed you to melee, and then immediately head shot the player and kill him.

In professional TF2, there was a weapon for Scouts that was banned because it was too powerful, and lent itself to being exploited. I don't remember the name but it let you shoot a ball that would stun players for several seconds, and you could kill them really quickly, as well as the bat itself having a lot of ammo to stun a lot of players.

Like, there's exploits in football, like touchbacks or faking fouls in soccer, but it's not nearly as bad as a player in competitive CSGO wearing a earpiece under his headphones that was connected to somebody spectating the other team.

Quote from Captain Cook

This is actually a legitimate debate, I just don't know why you guys get so mad

We were actually making legit points. Here, I'll repost mine.

I figured you had a good discussion going with azure and probably didn't want me to jump in. Actually the truth is I really don't like debating with you, I actually think YOU are the one that takes things way too seriously.

I have a hard time taking most of what you describe as "real sports" seriously competitively because of things like cheating, bribes and steroids. And other reasons, take a look at american football, the game is so broken that the rule book has to be massive. Almost every play there's some kind of call. As an outsider looking in that whole game just seems to be a mess to me. It's more watching the players get ready to play than actual play. But I'll still acknowledge it as a sport.

I thought the arguments about AI being able to outclass humans from a few pages back are invalid. Because power lifting is a sport but I could easily out-lift any man with a forklift. That's what we design machines to do, to out perform humans, to do what we can't. It wouldn't be sporting to put the two up against each other. Like you don't make an arm wrestling contest between man and bear, because there's no contest.

The thing is these exploits are yet another parallel between e-sports and traditional sports. People want to win that badly, look at baseball for godsake. In every competitive scene there's going to be those people that want to exploit and gain any cheap advantage any way they can and we call that unsportsmanlike.
That's what we designed

Quote from Jutsu

I'm not against reading, I'm against massive posts that don't clearly and concisely make their point.

Also, I've been following this thread since page two, I've definitely read it. Maybe if you could more clearly state your opinions on matters, I could understand them more easily?

Concisely? I mean. I just summed it up for you up there. Literally right there. In one paragraph. I've excluded every single thing that does not matter, even alternate definitions of sport. Sounds like you're just...talking. Not talking trash. Just talking. That is my final point as of now, as no one has really contested that. If it is laughable, contest it.

"A definition from some sports site that Exile gave that included Chess as a sport does not include E-Sports as a sport because the way videogames are programmed. It said there had to be absolutely NO luck element at all. There are many RNG elements that can determine games. These single RNG elements can determine entire games and tournaments. You find this RNG from spawning, to weapon spread, to just pure random luck. Even in games like Poker, your odds don't stack exponentially to determine a game, like it does in many E-Sports games. There is no downward spiral effect that you find."

Quote from Externus

Concisely? I mean. I just summed it up for you up there. Literally right there. In one paragraph. I've excluded every single thing that does not matter, even alternate definitions of sport. Sounds like you're just...talking. Not talking trash. Just talking. That is my final point as of now, as no one has really contested that. If it is laughable, contest it.

"A definition from some sports site that Exile gave that included Chess as a sport does not include E-Sports as a sport because the way videogames are programmed. It said there had to be absolutely NO luck element at all. There are many RNG elements that can determine games. These single RNG elements can determine entire games and tournaments. You find this RNG from spawning, to weapon spread, to just pure random luck. Even in games like Poker, your odds don't stack exponentially to determine a game, like it does in many E-Sports games. There is no downward spiral effect that you find."

There are more ways to arrange a deck of cards than there are atoms on earth. I think you're making a broad generalization too.

Take league of legends for example, there is very little RNG in that game and even in game mechanics that are determined by RNG *such as crit chance* it's predictable enough that skill is the primary factor.

If you look at firing real guns, even if you're an expert you can't be certain said bullet will fire perfectly 100% of the time. Unless a machine is doing the firing. The same goes for pitching and being a quarterback.

If anything chess is the perfect example of a solely skill focused game.

Quote from Jutsu

I figured you had a good discussion going with azure and probably didn't want me to jump in. Actually the truth is I really don't like debating with you, I actually think YOU are the one that takes things way too seriously.

I have a hard time taking most of what you describe as "real sports" seriously competitively because of things like cheating, bribes and steroids. And other reasons, take a look at american football, the game is so broken that the rule book has to be massive. Almost every play there's some kind of call. As an outsider looking in that whole game just seems to be a mess to me. It's more watching the players get ready to play than actual play. But I'll still acknowledge it as a sport.

I thought the arguments about AI being able to outclass humans from a few pages back are invalid. Because power lifting is a sport but I could easily out-lift any man with a forklift. That's what we design machines to do, to out perform humans, to do what we can't. It wouldn't be sporting to put the two up against each other. Like you don't make an arm wrestling contest between man and bear, because there's no contest.

The thing is these exploits are yet another parallel between e-sports and traditional sports. People want to win that badly, look at baseball for godsake. In every competitive scene there's going to be those people that want to exploit and gain any cheap advantage any way they can and we call that unsportsmanlike.
That's what we designed

Good point, but take a game like soccer.

The rules are very simple, and there is no RNG element.

RNG elements are the main reason I don't like Esports.

Take Company of Heroes 2. The tank combat system is literally RNG. Your tank can shoot another tank, have the shot bounce, and the tank can shoot back and kill your tank, because the RNG liked you.

I'm not arguing that Chess is a sport, it definitely is

But imagine Chess, but every time you moved a piece, you had to flip a coin to determine if you can even do that.

Quote from Captain Cook

Good point, but take a game like soccer.

The rules are very simple, and there is no RNG element.

RNG elements are the main reason I don't like Esports.

Take Company of Heroes 2. The tank combat system is literally RNG. Your tank can shoot another tank, have the shot bounce, and the tank can shoot back and kill your tank, because the RNG liked you.

I'm not arguing that Chess is a sport, it definitely is

But imagine Chess, but every time you moved a piece, you had to flip a coin to determine if you can even do that.

But random things can still happen in games like soccer, injuries, mistakes. Or on the other hand sometimes brilliant plays will be made, and these are the things that make it exciting for people.

Take another traditional sport for example, one people find extremely exciting, like cage fighting. You can never prevent the outcome with 100% certainty. I've seen boxing specialists get KO's with wheel kicks. Anderson Silva wasn't expecting his leg to turn into rubber either.

Just because the chaos in these sports isn't directly RNG, doesn't mean it isn't mostly random.

My point is that these flaws, these uncertainties are what make these games entertaining and most games that emphasize luck aren't taken seriously compared to games that focus on skill. These flaws stem from the human element, remove the human element and it's not worth watching.

Yeah, but the chance of that happening is ridiculously slim, man

Like, that's random, yeah, but it's not inherent to the game, you know?

Broken bones aren't something you have to seriously account for when playing a game, and also, there's penalites and game stoppages if that happens.

When Steven Curry knocked himself the fuck out when trying to get a rebound, that's a completely random event, no? However, they stopped the entire game and let him decide if he was ready to play, because although it was a random chance of happening, it wasn't part of the game.

Quote from Captain Cook

Yeah, but the chance of that happening is ridiculously slim, man

Like, that's random, yeah, but it's not inherent to the game, you know?

Broken bones aren't something you have to seriously account for when playing a game, and also, there's penalites and game stoppages if that happens.

When Steven Curry knocked himself the fuck out when trying to get a rebound, that's a completely random event, no? However, they stopped the entire game and let him decide if he was ready to play, because although it was a random chance of happening, it wasn't part of the game.

That's a good point and those are fair comparisons.

But in combat sports injuries ARE inherent. Take hockey for example, injuries are absolutely inherent to that game. I saw a game this season where a guy got his teeth knocked out, the game didn't stop and he skated back to the bench. On camera he pulled out a bunch of his teeth and was playing on the next shift.

But you can never really predict when said injuries are going to happen. Meanwhile hockey is still absolutely a skill based game.

Quote from Jutsu

But random things can still happen in games like soccer, injuries, mistakes. Or on the other hand sometimes brilliant plays will be made, and these are the things that make it exciting for people.

Take another traditional sport for example, one people find extremely exciting, like cage fighting. You can never prevent the outcome with 100% certainty. I've seen boxing specialists get KO's with wheel kicks. Anderson Silva wasn't expecting his leg to turn into rubber either.

Just because the chaos in these sports isn't directly RNG, doesn't mean it isn't mostly random.

My point is that these flaws, these uncertainties are what make these games entertaining and most games that emphasize luck aren't taken seriously compared to games that focus on skill. These flaws stem from the human element, remove the human element and it's not worth watching.

User error =/= Random

It is possible for a person to understand how to throw a ball incredibly accurately, and they demonstrate that in the NFL, in MLB, the NBA and many other sports. Poker is different in the sense that the randomness happens first for all players, then each player has to react. People understand where to go from given scenarios. It's not reactions being stifled by randomness. That's bad. Let's say you set up a strategy with your team, and everything is executed perfectly, but then weapon-spread doesn't give you a good draw, or, one of your teammates spawns across the map.

Even then, traditional sports don't feature randomness in the same way that E-Sports do because it comes down to programming. That's why I stick with DDR being the best E-Sport to have ever existed that fits every single description of sport.

Quote from Externus

User error =/= Random

It is possible for a person to understand how to throw a ball incredibly accurately, and they demonstrate that in the NFL, in MLB, the NBA and many other sports. Poker is different in the sense that the randomness happens first for all players, then each player has to react. People understand where to go from given scenarios. It's not reactions being stifled by randomness. That's bad. Let's say you set up a strategy with your team, and everything is executed perfectly, but then weapon-spread doesn't give you a good draw, or, one of your teammates spawns across the map.

Even then, traditional sports don't feature randomness in the same way that E-Sports do because it comes down to programming. That's why I stick with DDR being the best E-Sport to have ever existed that fits every single description of sport.

I guess it sort of depends how you're choosing to define random here.

I can give examples of e-sports games that are definitely not determined by random elements, namely melee. The outcome of those games has nothing to do with anything but the skill of the players. This is why I think saying a broad statement like "E-sports aren't real sports" is too generalized.

Quote from Externus

User error =/= Random

It is possible for a person to understand how to throw a ball incredibly accurately, and they demonstrate that in the NFL, in MLB, the NBA and many other sports. Poker is different in the sense that the randomness happens first for all players, then each player has to react. People understand where to go from given scenarios. It's not reactions being stifled by randomness. That's bad. Let's say you set up a strategy with your team, and everything is executed perfectly, but then weapon-spread doesn't give you a good draw, or, one of your teammates spawns across the map.

Even then, traditional sports don't feature randomness in the same way that E-Sports do because it comes down to programming. That's why I stick with DDR being the best E-Sport to have ever existed that fits every single description of sport.

I mean, luck management/risk management is a skill, and it's the skill that poker players hone to the max. In the weapon-spread case it's still a skill that applies. You get a bad draw, you figure out how to make the most of it. Your opponent gets a bad draw, the situation changes and you have to react to it adequately.

It's like Peach pulling out a bob-omb. It's something that completely changes the pace of the game, but it's expected that at that level both players can/will adapt in such a way that they get the most out of the new situation. That's actually part of the beauty of competitive videogames, and while it's something unique to them that manages to differentiate them from most currently existing sports, I don't see why that alone should prevent them from being able to be one.

Quote from Captain Cook

>Implying that wouldn't affect professional gaming

Steroids in football = Adderall in gaming
Bribes would remain the same
home field advantage is whatever

I'm talking about exploits like optimizing a game in ways you can't in real life. In professional Halo 2, you'll notice that B+X+RT resulted in players being killed immediately when they touched another player.

It was an exploit that allowed you to melee, and then immediately head shot the player and kill him.

In professional TF2, there was a weapon for Scouts that was banned because it was too powerful, and lent itself to being exploited. I don't remember the name but it let you shoot a ball that would stun players for several seconds, and you could kill them really quickly, as well as the bat itself having a lot of ammo to stun a lot of players.

Like, there's exploits in football, like touchbacks or faking fouls in soccer, but it's not nearly as bad as a player in competitive CSGO wearing a earpiece under his headphones that was connected to somebody spectating the other team.

No one's implying that it wouldn't affect professional gaming. The point is that you can still exploit sports via steroids and bribes in a way that affects the competitive aspect to the sport, similar to the game exploits that you were talking about. That being said, I can understand your point about really being able to abuse computer-based systems, but you can ban hilariously broken things that undermine the competitive sphere of the game; now I should note that I can't exactly defend games like TF2, CS:GO, or League because I've never touched any of those three games, so unfortunately I don't think I can extend this argument further when referencing those specific games. But I can defend game points that relate to Super Smash Brothers or even if a few fighting games, so if anyone wants to take me on against that, I can give it a shot.

is the damage dealt by your characters in Super Smash random? Or will a kick always deal 30 damage every single time?

Quote from Captain Cook

is the damage dealt by your characters in Super Smash random? Or will a kick always deal 30 damage every single time?

It's entirely dependent on the attack, but the damage is always consistent.

Actually percentage knowledge is a big part of the game, knowing what kills at what angle on what map to what characters at which percentages.