Tourney point scheme an abstraction

[Vieira151]

What about 3) A casual video game fan who also likes to occasionally watch tennis?
or 4) A sports fan who is passively interested in tennis, and likes to play video games casually?

What about them?

Well, you said there are 2 types of tennis gamers (at least in your experience). I was pointing out there are likely to be more.

Also, I wouldn't mind if you answered my latter question, because your answer would decide if I have any more to talk about.

[VMoe86]

There is no defence for taking a close look at the ranking and not knowing how the ranking works:

[Cro Morgan]

There is no defence for taking a close look at the ranking and not knowing how the ranking works:

FezAzulay never said he took a close look at the rankings, so no argument there.

I wouldn't mind if you answered my latter question, because your answer would decide if I have any more to talk about.

I have no idea what you mean, or what you are talking about.

[Fez]

There is no defence for taking a close look at the ranking and not knowing how the ranking works:

Vmoe, I DID read that. But you miss my point. My point is that I wish ranking ACTUALLY reflected player ability, which it often does not. That was at the heart of my argument. True, adhering to ATP scheme inherently causes this because of the incomplete seasons of so many people out here.

Here's a realism trade-off: Alter the ATP scheme so that you can't score first round. Yes, you sacrifice the realism of the real-life system. But in making this change you gain the realism of a ranking system that means more. Easy trade-off choice imo.

[Vieira151]

I wouldn't mind if you answered my latter question, because your answer would decide if I have any more to talk about.

I have no idea what you mean, or what you are talking about.

Well, I didn't really word it as a question, so... my bad?

I'm also interested in how you define a hardcore video game fan (because at first I was writing a paragraph based on 'hardcore gamers' but then I realised those are different).

That is what I was meaning. How do you define it?

[Cro Morgan]

So you think a "hardcore video game fan" is different than a "hardcore gamer"? Or maybe you don't, and you think that I think there is a difference between a "hardcore video game fan" and a "hardcore gamer"?

What does this have to do with anything and why does it matter?

[Vieira151]

Spoiler: show

What I was thinking, was that a hardcore gamer, in my eyes, would not like to play using arcade controls. They would play with SIM or Elite, because they are, after all, hardcore. Regardless of if they are tennis fans or not. (When I think of hardcore gamers, I don't think of guys who spend hundreds of hours sinking their time into arcade shooters such as CoD or Battlefield or fairly shallow action RPGs such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age).

Hardcore games fans, may differ. Depending on your view. I mean, I immediately thought of hardcore gamers when I read it, but then I saw your wording and wasn't sure if you may have held a distinction between the two. Are hardcore games fans just people who are really into knowing about games, and just play lots of games, in your eyes? Or are they people who strive for excellence when they are playing, to be the best and to beat the hardest? (which is essentially what hardcore gamers are, in my eyes).

And it matters because i was originally going to argue with you that a "hardcore gamer" wouldn't want to play on arcade, before I realised your wording. So I was just wanting some clarification on this before I went about discussing. I didn't do it very well, but yeah.

Feck it. I'm arguing semantics. Bleurgh.

Also, don't get me wrong, I ain't a hardcore gamer, I'm pretty shit at games.

[Cro Morgan]

There is no defence for taking a close look at the ranking and not knowing how the ranking works:

Vmoe, I DID read that. But you miss my point. My point is that I wish ranking ACTUALLY reflected player ability, which it often does not. That was at the heart of my argument. True, adhering to ATP scheme inherently causes this because of the incomplete seasons of so many people out here.

Here's a realism trade-off: Alter the ATP scheme so that you can't score first round. Yes, you sacrifice the realism of the real-life system. But in making this change you gain the realism of a ranking system that means more. Easy trade-off choice imo.

What the?!?! I was trying to support you.

With this, sorry, you're on your own.

[Fez]

CroMorg,

What part of this is so shocking?? The part where I say I want ITST rankings to reflect ability more accurately? No? Ok...the part where I say do get rid of first round points? Or the part where I say the problem with the ranking is many people on the tour don't play a full season?

Because, again, the scheme would work fine if the players all stayed active all year. But they don't. So the system fails on ITST where it succeeds in real life.

I'm not that unreasonable Cro. C'mon.

[Elias]

What I was thinking, was that a hardcore gamer, in my eyes, would not like to play using arcade controls. They would play with SIM or Elite, because they are, after all, hardcore. Regardless of if they are tennis fans or not. (When I think of hardcore gamers, I don't think of guys who spend hundreds of hours sinking their time into arcade shooters such as CoD or Battlefield or fairly shallow action RPGs such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age).

Hardcore games fans, may differ. Depending on your view. I mean, I immediately thought of hardcore gamers when I read it, but then I saw your wording and wasn't sure if you may have held a distinction between the two. Are hardcore games fans just people who are really into knowing about games, and just play lots of games, in your eyes? Or are they people who strive for excellence when they are playing, to be the best and to beat the hardest? (which is essentially what hardcore gamers are, in my eyes).

And it matters because i was originally going to argue with you that a "hardcore gamer" wouldn't want to play on arcade, before I realised your wording. So I was just wanting some clarification on this before I went about discussing. I didn't do it very well, but yeah.

i have to agree, i had somewhat the same reaction reading Cro Morgan post

It's not that simple, i think one have to differenciate gameplay/controls from visual/physics in this matter, because arcade and simulation words have a different meaning depending wich lexical field they belong to

That's also why i didn't answered in another thread because i knew it could lead to some sterile debate when you're simply not talking the same language.

"arcade" can be used in opposition to "hardcore" when it comes down to controls, gameplay. And "Arcade" can also be used in opposition to "Simulation" when it comes down to the looks, visuals, physics.

An hardcore gamer will mostly always strive for hardcore controls, difficulty, gameplay depth, whatever the game he's playing. A casual gamer in the opposite will look for easy going controls, more assisted gameplay, for immediate fun, and will usually not suffer from a lack of gameplay depth because he's not playing often enough to be limited by the lack of depth.

So that both casual and harcore gamers can be tennis fans as well, and tennis fans can be casual or hardcore gamers.

The confusion is current because both worlds are mixing the concepts, hardcore gamers calling "sim" a game showing deep and difficult controls, or on the opposite people calling a game "sim" judging mostly by the realistic look, even if the controls are extremely basic / simple. So obviously this can lead to some misunderstanding between such people opposing different concepts.

From my part, i'm a tennis fan and hardcore gamer. So my preference is logically leaning toward a tennis game, wich looks realistic, physically, visually, and also provides a rich gameplay depth, promoting skills. By the way the control depth is especially very important in a competitive environment, as it promotes a longer learning curve, more skills to acquire with time, thus keeping the competitors interest last longer. If a game leans to arcarde controls (talking of gameplay here, not looks) then it's easyer to pick up, but usually lacking depth in the long run because too much assisted, thus getting players bored faster, it's also poor regarding competition because it smoothes the skill differences. So if the game has a good appeal, you may still have a running competition with a lot of members turn over, but not necessarily keeping your player base interested, wich imo is a fail, community wise.


Now i'll answer to Manutoo here because it's somewhat tied to this topic (wandering from the op topic though, sorry) :

And hopefully once & for all, stop with the misuse of Arcade/Sim term.
Arcade doesn't mean easy, it means not realistic ; and Simulation doesn't mean hard, it means realistic.
Easy = casual ; so you can call the default TE settings a casual simulation if you want ; but calling the AutoStep Back arcade while it makes the reaction time more realistic is a complete non-sense.

Well, yes, see above I wouldn't say a misuse, more a contextual use, in a different lexical field. No need to play with words. I would then point you toward the terms you're using yourself for the three different TE control schemes : Arcade, Simulation, Elite, wich you may then have called Easy, Hard, Elite. I mean we can both mix up the use of these words, obviously.

Also you just wrote v1.0e was more enjoyable, and the main reason (even if it seems you have trouble to see that) is coz of the _unrealistic_ speed conversion when turning around that was fixed in v1.0f ... So less realism = more for fun for you = you're an Arcade guy (no no, drop this gasoline can & this match, no need to immolate yourself, that's not so bad ).

The main reason it was more enjoyable is because the gameplay, overall, felt more balanced. Both 1.0e and 2013 are imo visually and physically looking very good tennis simulators, don't get me wrong. The best out there, i guess we all agree on this point. It's more tied to the requirements / needs of a competition league environment, of course we'll head to the more realistically looking game, but also a deep/balanced gameplay enough, the best of both worlds, as much as possible, it's linked to the project we're running here, we'd rather have some choice/flexibility.


Now about the auto-step back, i agree my rants were a bit provocative, sorry about that, i know it's not the only reason for the current gameplay dynamics changes, as the forward/back/angled speed conversion also plays a considerable role. It's more due to a combination of those things, wich actually leads defense to be less skill demanding than aggressive play. I think it was already true in older versions, but was more acceptable than it is currently.

I'm pretty sure such a post : http://www.managames.com/Forum/topic13-11350.php will not be the last one about it.
Though i guess you're used to it, i mean, i can remember througout the different versions, the forum whining going from an extreme to the other.. "where is the speeeed", "it's too sloooow", "manu give us speed baaack u killed the game" .. to .. "speeed is back !!!" .. "drops are dead" etc etc I mean, i understand that Tennis is probably one of the most difficult sport to balance properly, gameplay wise in a video game.

Now about the auto-step back, i guess we'll always disagree on such an assist, as from my part i guess i won't ever like the philosophy behind it. Removing (partly) the human skill / reflexes factor from the gameplay for the sake of the *looks* is in my opinion definitely a fail. Or it should be tied to the "Easy/Casual/Whatever" control scheme mode, to please casual players, but here again, we're going to a concept opposition, the looks vs the gameplay. I can't agree with such a concept, because it can also lead to some escalation : if an assist helps to defend, and you figure out there is some defense/attack imbalance, then why not compensating it by introducing an assist for attackers then, and so on, stacking assists, ending with some heavily assisted game, wich will not suit an online competition, at least like lots of people conceive it, and that not only about Tennis games. In the end, the best Sim, realistically looking wise, would then be lying on my sofa watching some tennis classic @ Eurosport, maybe enjoying some online betting for the sake of casual interactivity

Joking aside, no hard feelings, you can call me arcade if you want, i guess we're all the arcade guy of someone else

[Cro Morgan]

[Vieira151]

[djarvik]

[manutoo]

Elias,
not sure why you want to hijack this topic instead of creating a new topic, but I guess you must have some nail clippers and a pointy stick on you so it should go smoothly...

Arcade controls are named so coz they are less realistic than the simulation ones. They were meant to be used with the Slow AutoPos to re-create a gameplay similar of TE2006 in TE2009. It's globally not that much easier than Simulation + Medium AutoPos, but it's surely less realistic.

About the current defense/offense balance, I'm still not sure what to think. I don't play that much online, but so far, I never met a pure defensive player ; everybody is quite aggressive when he can, and defende when he can't attack, which is pretty logical (with some variations, of course) ; I didn't get to meet any wall hugger, but as I know how to use the short accel and that I play in Fair/Elite (where low balls we get when we stand near the wall can be quite challenging), I guess that's normal.

About the auto-step back, it doesn't replace nor enhance the player reflexes, but avoid them to be crippled, as it triggers only once you have released the direction button, coz you noticed you were going in the wrong direction.
I'll quote myself about that :

And a little bonus note : the auto-step-back actually simulates better what I (and any tennis player for a matter of fact) do a on _real_ court : ie: once I stop to accelerate in a direction, I decelerate/accelerate in the opposite direction ; there's no latency between these 2 states.
What the latency brought by the controller would do in real life is : I let my body follow its course (ie: slowly decelerate / staying immobile) for a while before actually starting to actively decelerate/accelerate in opposite dir, although I already decided to run in the opposite direction.
So calling "arcade" something that actually simulates better what's going on in real life feels a bit strange.

And to end this post, arcade come from there => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_game ... It doesn't have much relation to easiness or casual gaming...

[Elias]

Elias,
not sure why you want to hijack this topic instead of creating a new topic, but I guess you must have some nail clippers and a pointy stick on you so it should go smoothly...

Well, no it was mostly 'cause i've read something in this thread i wanted to answer as well, as it was in my opinion an easy shortcut and not necessary always true. And talking about arcade/simulation concepts it was somewhat linked to our previous sharings about it, so i started to answer here and finished it there instead of splitting posts :

Generally speaking, the hardcore tennis fan typically prefers realistic games/settinges (i.e. sim). The hardcore gaming fan leans toward arcade settings.

Additionally, the hardcore tennis fan who plays video games knows practically everything about tennis (and how the ranking system works). The hardcore gamer who enjoys tennis games, knows a little, but not a lot about tennis (i.e may not know how the ranking system works, or, how draws are made).

About the current defense/offense balance, I'm still not sure what to think. I don't play that much online, but so far, I never met a pure defensive player ; everybody is quite aggressive when he can, and defende when he can't attack, which is pretty logical (with some variations, of course) ; I didn't get to meet any wall hugger, but as I know how to use the short accel and that I play in Fair/Elite (where low balls we get when we stand near the wall can be quite challenging), I guess that's normal.

Well maybe you should grant a bit more trust to people playing loads of time online then.
About defense/offense balance it's mostly an observation, prolly due to a sum of things, it's difficult to point out the exact reason, neither to bring a magic solution (we thought recently about the backwards running speed vs. forward though, cause fast steps backwards (lowered speed conversion on this axis may emphasize it) maybe helps a bit to much to adjust quickly positionning in defense, that would need thorough testing though, not sure slower backward movement helps balancing, but if it does, this may also bring a bit more realism).


About Fair/Elite, it's not like we didn't tested it as well (i didn't personnaly yet though), but after that someone had some sessions with this setup, i've read such comments like "what a pushing, even worse compared to our settings".
In fact, using Fair settings, if i'm not wrong about it, your Forehands max power is 70, and backhands 65, and max character speeds is 75, right ? Wich means overall the char speeds in this mode are approx 5% > power.
In our current roster, our speeds are somewhat overall close to power, even if there is some disparity.
For example with the Djokovic/Federer match-up, Federer has a 84 power FH vs Djokovic 84 speed, and Djokovic a 81 FH power vs Federer 82 speed. Thus it's not much surprising if our setup is now a bit more winner friendly than MG one.

Considering the general gameplay, i think the best (more enjoyable/balanced regarding attack/defense) match-ups we can currently play with our roster, are those involving the chars in the 80/82 speed range, with around 81/83 power, that is, matches involving Gasquet/Wawrinka/Federer/Haas/Nalbandian. We don't want to make all the chars carbon copies of them though, obviously. Thus we may scale down slightly our speeds again (like 2% prolly).

And to end this post, arcade come from there => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_game ... It doesn't have much relation to easiness or casual gaming...

I'm well aware where it's coming from, i played those in bars when i was young, pacman, asteroids anyone ?
As always words are hijacked thru time and decades from their original meaning. If arcade ended being used to point out "Easy", it's because games/controllers complexity evolved and those arcade machines where assimilated to games wich "only needed 3 buttons and a stick to be played". Wich doesn't mean they were always easy to play, some were damn hardcore to master i agree