Yes, it is the point. It is indeed the whole point of this thread: Should this be a design goal or not.
Thank you for agreeing on this one, at least up to the point where we ask a very vital question:
That is true. Is this really the case? Is it impossible? If it was, a single example for how it is possible would remove that notion from the debate, right?
So, now we need to find criteria that, in for example your opinion, have a given solution count as "working". What are your criteria for that?
Sophokles, this reminds me of the old bit where a guy asks out a woman, and she shoots him down with "Only if you were the last man on earth". His response: "So, you're telling me there's a chance!"
I'll give you my criteria below.
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Are you seriously claiming that 1v1 situations don't happen in 5v5 fights?
Are you seriously claiming that because 1v1 situations happen, the design space needs to privilege them at the same level it does team play? Because that's a stupid argument. Here's why:
1v2 also happens, now needs to be balanced for. Ditto 1v3. Ditto 1v4. Ditto 1v5. Ditto 2v3... etc.
Again, as I said last time, very clearly, 1v1 fights happen, but that doesn't mean we need to balance for them, any more than we need to balance for any of the other possible combinations the system is not designed for, because those situations are fundamentally different from the game play we are trying to encourage.
Analogy: Cars sometimes drive into rivers. Does this mean that we need to design all cars to also be boats, or does it mean we need to train people to drive better?
I note that in your yen to score points off me by equivocating about the "1v1 is a subset" argument, you completely conceded that 1v1 is fundamentally different, for the reasons I listed. Let me put it to you this way - I'm saying that apples and oranges are both fruit, but that doesn't mean that apples are a 'subset' of oranges, because they are totally different things.
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Well, unfortunately, that is not a useable definition, because "satisfying" depends on highly subjective matters of taste and custom. What we need are objetive criteria here, such as "fight lasts no less than X, but no more than Y", and other objetively measureable criteria. Could you give a list that works for you, so that I can design an example that scales for 1v1, 5v5 and 10v10 for those criteria?
It's not a usable definition for you, because you sense that you will be unable to make a case that your 'solution' is 'satisfying' without quantifying it. That doesn't matter, though, because I am under no obligation to give you only those criteria that you feel able to meet.
Besides, in a game, what other criteria is there besides fun?
That said, I am highly interested in seeing you try this, so, here are some objective criteria to get you started:
matches last an average of 10 minutes, with a 95% confidence level, for both 1v1 and 5v5 matches.
Players have a selection of meaningful choices to make in ship and power selection - at least equal to what is in the game now. Meaningful in this context means that the selections I make will change the nature of the ensuing combat in ways that are obvious. Note that this may mean that some combinations are better than others - since some posters (you) are highly resistant to the idea that there can (or should be) one 'best' way to play, for bonus points, make sure that all the powers are equally effective in all combinations.
Players have active click power available at least once every ten seconds in top level pvp - on average. Note that some play styles may make this easier/harder, as the alpha strikers will likely stack powers on top of each other seeking an instant advantage, while other players may require up to 30 seconds of pure inaction so that they can think about the situation carefully (okay, that last guy wasn't you, but you remind me of him).
Players of roughly equal skill level have roughly equal chances of winning a match, both 1v1 and 5v5, meaning the 5v5 setting has to be robust enough so that a more skilled player can balance out a less skilled player on the same team.
And finally, the game still has to be fun. Meaning I reserve the right to make a case that whatever you come up with doesn't sound like an experience I would enjoy. You can balk at that all you like, but fun is important in a game, so you will have to defend any alternative on those grounds.
Okay, I think that's about it, Don Quixote - that windmill over there is looking at you funny, go sic it!