This is a rehash and remake of my other thread which for some reason wasnt getting much discussion, so i thought id broaden the topic and make it better contructed.
Many “uncompetitive” functions in the game such as radar, AAs, bloom, etc, break atleast one of these 3 rules, there are many other smaller ones such as no random mechanics. Basically anything can be added to the game as long as they follow them.
Rule #1: They should not make other skills obsolete or useless, even if the functions require skill in themselves to use.
Example: jetpacks kinda hard to master, but makes even the best gernades almost useless. Breaks map flow too.
Example: long kill times make shooting a little harder, but make flanks or map positioning next to pointless.
Rule #2: They should not have bigger bonuses for defensive use than offensive use. (reason posted at bottom)
Example: sprint, armorlock, hardlight shield all are mainly used defensively.
Rule #3: A game function should not accomplish the job that can be accomplished with the applied skill of multiple aspects.
Example: ProVision makes you know where people are, when this was already derivable with knowledge of the map, spawns, enemy thinking patterns, etc.
Now another main point is HARDER =/= SKILL GAP. Example: (bad example, but conveys the message well)
Picture a 1v1 with no radar, and theres a room with 3 exits. A good player would know the estimated time to each door, reasons for going to each door, thought patterns of enemy, and the likely hood for each door. Lets say hes really good, and this results in a 90% success rate of guessing which door is used.
Now same example, but with 20 exits. Its now waaayyyyyy harder, but the player is only successful 10% of the time.
Now lets say the 2 above examples, but with his lesser skilled opponent. His 2 success rates are 40% and 5%.
Sure it was harder for the skilled player, but it alienated the skills he had learned and developed, resulting in an easier game for the lesser opponent.
Now for the Rule #2 explanation:
Someone who does hang back isnt necessarily worse. Lets look at halo 3 for an example, if someone hung back, it was easy to run. But they were still receiving the same benefits as the aggressor.
And typically the aggressor will need less defensive capabilities, if they are better. So a while balanced but slightly tipping the scale in favour of the aggressor will produce a more skilled and fast paced game.
Of course you shouldnt tip it too far in the direction of the aggressor, other wise the skills of defensive strategies would be alienated, but that doesnt mean make an AA which makes defensive strats easier. (i.e. sprint, camo)
Defensive =/= passive
Offensive =/= aggressive
These words do not mean the same thing. You can be offensive with passiveness, and defensive with aggressiveness.
Some examples:
Aggressive/defensive
Say your playing doubles oddball, and your buddy has the oddball and is trying to get away but is weak. You jump out very aggressively but with only the intent of staving your opponents off the oddball carrier.
A trap or lure would be a good example of a passive/offensive strategy.
And yes, offensive doesnt technically require more skill than defensive, but without offensive being favored, game functions would only serve as a crutch and defensive would be the go-to style for the lesser player, lowering skillgap and slowing down the game.
PLEASE discuss and post your thoughts.