WILL 121: Week 11

Some of the players in the documentary talk about a time when players were secretive about their techniques that they discovered themselves (before the internet and Youtube). How do you feel about this relative to what happens nowadays?

It was certainly valid to keep your techniques to yourself back then. It may not have been "fair" to some but it was effective as a method to maintain an advantage over your opponent. Nowadays, new mechanics in a competitive game tend to be revealed as soon as they are discovered. Players like to gain recognition for discovering an effective new technique.

Also, how do you feel about the format that Alex Valle chooses to use for the Wednesday Night Fights tournaments?

It's an effective format for player improvement and skill development. The competitive nature of this format gives players a huge incentive to hone their skills so that they can move up in the player tiers. This method of separating players based on performance occurs naturally in most competitive games. The truly skillful players will stand out and practice amongst themselves since they provide each other the most worthy challenge and ability to improve. Playing against lower skilled opponents doesn't allow for much room to improve oneself.

WILL 121: Week 10

At what point do you feel that a game becomes imbalanced? How do you feel about Maj's viewpoint?

A game becomes imbalanced when one tactic supersedes all others in effectiveness. This occurs in both multiplayer and single player games. For example, in the game Dragon Origins there are 3 classes: mage, warrior, rogue. The mage is superior in many ways to the other classes for it's ability to heal and attack from range. In competitive DotA and HoN, imbalances are harder to determine because the game is so dynamic. Each team consists of 5 players and there are 60+ heroes to choose from so there are many tactics to exploit that may seem imbalanced simply because of the combination of heroes chosen.

IMBA not UMBA-lanced! lol
I agree with him that it's unrealistic to expect balance in a game with a huge player pool or a large number of matchups. The best way to keep a game from being ruined by 1 or 2 power characters is probably just beta testing and/or patches.

WILL 121: Week 9

Do you agree or disagree with James's opinion that smaller communities should embrace Super Street Fighter 4 in order to grow their own community?
The smaller gaming communities should be accepting and supportive of the top competitors in its gaming niche. Gaming communities always want to expand their members and popularity and in order to do so they must appeal to members of the more popular gaming communities. Although I believe that some games, by design, limit their potential player-base. Games with high skill ceilings, niche play styles, and complex game mechanics will just inherently be unable to draw in as many players as an easier game with less complexities.


Do you feel that the fragmented fighting game communities should "act as a whole"? Why or why not?
Fighting game communities should be respectful of each at the very least. The should work together to host events. Humans like variety in their taste for all aspects of life and gaming is no different. Communities that bash each other out of pettiness are only hurting their potential player-base.

WILL 121: Week 6

James makes a point that certain communities are "watered down" from excess players. Should communities strive to get better if it comes at the cost of alienating newer players?

I don't agree that a community should alienate newer players. A community should strive to have as many respectable players as possible. Removing "excess" players would not necessarily improve its community.

Also, do you agree with James's viewpoint of a strong community making a strong game or do you feel that it is the other way around?

It can work either way because there are flawed games with a strong community and a well-developed gaming that lends itself to having a strong community.

WILL 121: Week 4

How do you feel about "soft bans"?
I like the idea of soft bans. The way that the Japanese use a soft ban to improve the gameplay in tournaments is interesting.


Do you feel that this contradicts "playing to win"?
Someone could argue that it does but I don't think it actually contradicts "playing to win." Each player is still playing to win.

Also, how do you feel about the Street Fighter community's decision to outright ban Akuma from Super Turbo?
Although I've never played Super Turbo, the ban on Akuma seems justified. A character with that much strength ruins the game since he will be the only character chosen.

Is this hypocritical?
No.

Do you feel that bans are ever warranted?
Certainly. In most competitive games that I have played bans are an important part of the game. They keep the "metagame" from being stale with the variety that is usually available by banning the overpowered/unfair things of the game.

WILL 121: Week 3

After watching, please respond to the following questions on your own blog:

“Gootecks” (Ryan Gutierrez) and “Long Island Joe” (Joe Ciaramelli) have very different opinions on how far they should pursue Street Fighter. Whose position would you take and why?

I would side with Ryan Gutierrez. Gaming is a great hobby and can be very fun even in the competitive scene but the same game would get old for me after a while. Ryan knows that Street Fighter won't be popular forever so he will move on to the next fighting game that becomes popular in the competitive gaming scene.

Also, how do you feel about the rivalry between the East and West coast? Do you think it is beneficial or detrimental to the community?
East and west??? This is bias; where are the central states?!
But seriously there is nothing wrong with a rivalry between different regions of the US. It's the same as something like a basketball rivalry or a college rivalry. Rivalries such as these are beneficial because the community of both sides will thrive. They will both strive to be better than the other and they will have pride for their region.

WILL 121: Week 2

How do you feel about Richard's use of alliances to vote people off?

It's an obvious strategy that would be effective in a "game" like survivor. I guess to answer the question; I feel that it is a valid tactic.

If Richard already knew that most of the other contestants were "scrubs", do you still think it was a good idea for him to try to get votes during the final 2 by insisting that the purpose of the game is to win?

Not at all. I wouldn't say it was a bad idea either though. Each of the final 2 needed a platform to persuade the judges to vote for them. Kelly argued that the "best" person should win, in other words the most likable/amiable, while Hatch argued that the person that "played" to win should be chosen. It seems that for this game, Survivor, that this final plea weighed heavily in the opinion of the judges. In the end though, Hatch was simply better than Kelly at debating his stance.