Black and white fallacy. If not a, must be b, you say? Hmm.
But no, a longer batch absolutely does not raise the skill cap.
Again, arguing for the authenticity of it is valid. I don’t agree with it, but it’s valid.
Arguing for the skill of it is ludicrous. Go play turn based strategy games.
Something which you have no visibility to on top of your and everyone elses lag impacting what batches various spells will end up in.
Annnnd you just lost the argument ![:ok_hand:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/ok_hand.png?v=6" ":ok_hand:")
Sure didn’t as everything I said was correct =D glad to know you care more about winning the argument than being right it really shows a lot.
It still makes it pretty twitch, it just doesn’t make it so that whoever hits their button .01 seconds faster wins.
400ms allows for, under best circumstances, 150-230ms of spare time based on average Human reaction time to visual or audio stimuli. If you do anything but instinctively react to it, you’re probably going to miss the server tick.
There is also a randomness in that you don’t actually know when the server tick will happen.
That said, having an element of randomness doesn’t automatically make it not skill as well. Hearthstone has randomness to it, and it is very much a game that requires skill to play at a high level.
Please do carry on with the ad hominem. You do not seem to have anything else to offer at this point.
You’re right I don’t, I already explained everything there is needed to explain to you. It’s up to you to accept it or not. I’m just guessing you won’t because you seem like that type of person.
Fair point, but at the same time excessive RNG is commonly cited as a significant issue w Hearthstone.
See: every thread about Barnes.
People will always complain about the random factor in games, but there is still skill in being able to mitigate the randomness.
With 400ms spell batching, the average Human can react faster than that meaning you have room to play around it if the timing is good on when the effect you’re reacting to hits you.
The better you are at anticipating your enemy’s moves and the faster you can react, the better you’ll be at mitigating that randomness.
Like I originally said in this thread: For the majority of players they probably wont even bother to try to play around this, and for them it’ll feel like it’s entirely random. With this, it’s probably also not quite as important as some people around here want to suggest.
It is however, still a skill based element even if there is a random factor to it.
Labelling every single argument presented to you as a fallacy isn’t conductive for a good conversation. Let’s keep discussion on topic, which is spell batching. Do you have any responses for my post are that aren’t “Black and white fallacy” or “Arguing for the skill of it is ludicrous”? Something constructive, rather than “you are wrong because fallacy X”.
Okay, all good points, but this point would support a shorter batch in a twitch gaming experience.
The thing is that once you go beyond the limits of human reaction time, all my points about skill get thrown out the window.
I guess you could use a 200-300ms spell batching but if you’re going through all the trouble of doing that, why not just make it 400 to be authentic?
The point of Classic, as per Blizzard’s own admission, is to keep it authentic. Not to try to make it better.
But you are wrong because of fallacy X. You haven’t presented any valid arguments that I can see.
Here’s the problem with spell batching under the old timing, you can have two people react say 10 MS apart but end up in different batches and two people who react 399MS apart but end up in the same batch.
There’s a huge random swing there determined by not knowing when the actual batches are occurring as well as all the lag involved on everyone’s side.
That’s not a problem though. You can have someone who has .01% critical strike and the other who has 100% and they can also both crit each other. People who ARE good enough can game the system in their favor, and yes on the other hand people will get lucky with this when they shouldn’t have. That doesn’t make it a terrible system.
I guess I just disagree on two levels -
The argument for authenticity is valid. I do think it’s a little silly - why not recreate a myriad of bugs as well? - but it’s surely valid. We may just disagree whether it’s worthwhile.
The difference is crit rate is an in game mechanic that you control with gear/stats etc… Server tick times and lag have nothing to do with mechanics which is why ideally games want zero lag.
I can also miss a 99% chance to hit shot in XCOM.
but anybody who claims XCOM is pure luck has no clue what they’re talking about and should be dismissed as such.
The existence of random does not negate the fact of skill.
Server ticks are an in game mechanic that you can control with skill. It is no different
I have no doubt that Vanilla could be improved in a number of ways. No game in the history of gaming is perfect, after all.
But Blizzard themselves have said the point isn’t to try to fix or improve things, because we’re not all going to agree on what constitutes and improvement.
With that in mind, authenticity should be the goal because that’s what Blizzard has said their goal is with this whole project. If they’re going to reintroduce any form of spell batching that isn’t 10ms, then they should go with 400 because that’s what is authentic.
We could argue the merits of 200, 300, or even 500 but again: Blizzard has said their goal is not to try to “improve” upon the game but to recreate it as it was.
There are a few bugs I wouldn’t mind coming back, like wall-walking out in the world.