|
XP system? really? That's what their big idea was?
Sure, bring in more casuals, but they won't save your game. They'll save your company, but Starcraft 2 is doomed for failure at this point. If Blizzard was smart, they would have used whatever time it took to create their XP system and used it to focus on WHY THEIR GAME ISN'T COMPETITIVE.
I gave an example in my last blog about how all other competitive type games have a factor that's working against you REGARDLESS of what your opponent is doing. I was watching Baseball last night (fucking Tigers, really guys? I mean, come on. I can't remember the pitchers name who they brought out in the 8th, but it was obvious his Post season experience was NILL), thinking to myself "Baseball doesn't have THAT factor of something working against you constantly like other sports/games do..."
But then it hit me (and I walked to first) - Baseball/Cricket/Other baseball esque games is one of the only games (it's not a sport) where the Offense attempts to score while the Defense has the ball. That's the factor that works against you constantly. The only way to score runs (unlike every other sport) is to be up to bat without real control over where the ball is going.
I want people to come up with things that SC2 has that works against you constantly that IS NOT controlled by your enemy opponent in the replies. I honestly have tried to think of something, but nothing is coming to me.
I would also enjoy if someone could counter Max Level Theory because as far as I can see, it's real and Blizzard is following it to a T.
EDIT: I think i'm going to call the idea that something must be working against you aside from your opponent the "Neutral Opposition Theory"
 
|
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport.
|
Completely sound logic. That must be why BW was successful for so long, the buggy AI was a bigger threat than the opponent.
In all seriousness the terrible AI made it more fun to watch as it was harder to master.
|
Please don't say sc2 is doomed when you have no idea what you are talking about.
I can still find a warcraft 3 ladder game in less than 5 minutes queue most of the time, and there is still tournaments.
Also it is not their big idea - its 1 from their huge bulk.
|
- Without casuals, no progamers. You need fans to milk to pay the pro.
- In real competitive games, the only opposition is your opponent. Look at pretty much every single sport (tennis is a great place to start).
That said, this measure is retarded anyway. They should rather "socialise" battle.net, so it becomes a nice place to hangout.
|
On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport.
but what about zee baseball PUN where he is hit and walked to first?
hoby2k, I think you need to clearly define what you want from starcraft two very simply.
Personally, I agree blizzard's newer products are of lesser quality than their older products. I disagree that they need any new ideas. What makes diablo 2's sorc, barb, pally, necro, assasin, amazon, etc better than monk, wizard, witch doctor? well hammers were cool auras were cool. Everything just had that fine touch of great detail.
The same with starcraft 2. The attention to the beautiful details. The games are worse. we were spoiled with the older versions and now we are seeing what we now lack.
|
XP levels is an easy change to make that'll reward people for playing.
Did they say this idea was going to save the SC franchise?
For that matter, does the SC franchise need saving?
|
-limited resources, unlimited need to spend them
-limited degree to which one can multitask, unlimited need to do so
-limited cap on APM in battles, unlimited demand to control every unit, have time slowed to 1/100th normal speed, etc.
I don't really understand your perspective, at all.
Did you want 1v1 to be on those stupid lava maps from the campaign, or there to be bands of neutral creeps that come around and rampage peoples bases randomly?
Also, a deathball isn't a 'level'. A 'level' or a 'max level' is a tier of sorts that is hard coded into the game experience. A deathball is an effective strategy that arises as an effective strategy due to a range of disparate factors-- unit clumping, stacking, splash damage, unit synergy, map size, unit speeds, etc etc etc. It wasn't designed into the game, therefore it makes no sense to talk about it as though it were.
|
On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport.
5/5 for saying baseball isn't a sport <3
|
I only partially agree with you. Attracting casuals is very important for SC2 to get big imo. Just look at soccer or tennis for example those are sports that are attractive to casuals and professionals. Think of it as a pyramid, if you want a higher pyramid you need to build a broader foundation first (if that makes sense).
What i personally can agree with you is that XP is a weak improvement to SC2 when it comes to attracting casuals. XP will not bring more casuals into the game it will only make them stay a little bit longer.
|
Too little, too late for blizzard. maybe if they didn't release SC2 25% finished and with even less features than SC1...
|
At this point, Blizzard could fix everything about the game, make it perfect and pay you for playing it and the community would still be outraged and complaining about it, because if there's one thing SC2 fans love more than actually playing the game that they apparently love, it's hitting the forums and complaining about anything and everything.
I used to come to this site and the posts and news would make me happy. That's not really the case anymore.
|
Because the UI designers totally are responsible for designing and balancing the gameplay and are the ones responsible for deathball vs deathball and the Infestor problem.
|
On October 27 2012 00:49 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport. 5/5 for saying baseball isn't a sport <3
You're damn right it's not a sport. It's a game! Every fan knows that.
|
On October 27 2012 02:25 eviltomahawk wrote:
Because the UI designers totally are responsible for designing and balancing the gameplay and are the ones responsible for deathball vs deathball and the Infestor problem.
There are WAY more other various UI improvements that could be made. I don't think adding an XP system on top of the other ones is a good use of time.
And infestors aren't necessarily a problem, nor the deathball in itself. The lack fo Neutral Opposition combined with Max Supply Theory basically defeats the purpose of any sort of competitive aspect of the game. It still has one, but it's missing a piece that could practically make the game's skill ceiling go through the roof which is something that works against you. Even if they followed Max Supply Theory, they could still get away with SC2 being more viable as an esport if they some sort of neutral opposition.
|
On October 27 2012 02:36 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:49 synapse wrote:On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport. 5/5 for saying baseball isn't a sport <3 You're damn right it's not a sport. It's a game! Every fan knows that.
You see how eerily similar this sounds to the whole SC2 vs Dota2/LoL arguments?
They're irrelevant. You keep thinking baseball is the most boring sport ever. I'll just keep my eyes glued to the world series.
|
Wait... is there a problem with having something work against you that is not your enemy as long as your enemy is still enough for you to loss the game ? And even than, don't you have the UI, mechanics... etc kinda "working against you".
I fail to see your point. Starcraft 2 is not as popular as DOTA and LoL, also dota and lol are not as popular as angry birds.
Starcraft 2 is a relatively hard game compared to other games and thus its harder for it to have as many player as LOL and DOTA have, like it is for DOTA and LOL to have as many player as starcraft 2 has.
Starcraft 2 costs 60$ and has campaign + modding tools + all sort of challenges + top level graphics + top level voice acting, LOL and DOTA are free to play with micro transactions ( well DOTA is kind of steam add machine arguably, but beside the point ) and have no modding, no campaign , youtubers as voice actors and cartoon-ish graphics and angry birds is free with a pop up add when you open the game with no voice acting, 2d graphics and not even a multiplayer gig.
Sure we can see why sc and dota would differ in popularity much like angry birds and dota would ?
Its a 60$ game that's aimed at being relatively hard for current decade RTS, the fact that over 6 million people bough it is good enough, interest in it is not wide enough to deem a competitive scene dota or lol size and blizzard DOESN'T MAKE MONEY and adds of competitive scene they make money of selling full priced games and they afford adds anywhere they want.
|
On October 27 2012 00:28 caradoc wrote:
-limited resources, unlimited need to spend them
-limited degree to which one can multitask, unlimited need to do so
-limited cap on APM in battles, unlimited demand to control every unit, have time slowed to 1/100th normal speed, etc.
I don't really understand your perspective, at all.
Did you want 1v1 to be on those stupid lava maps from the campaign, or there to be bands of neutral creeps that come around and rampage peoples bases randomly?
Also, a deathball isn't a 'level'. A 'level' or a 'max level' is a tier of sorts that is hard coded into the game experience. A deathball is an effective strategy that arises as an effective strategy due to a range of disparate factors-- unit clumping, stacking, splash damage, unit synergy, map size, unit speeds, etc etc etc. It wasn't designed into the game, therefore it makes no sense to talk about it as though it were.
None of those are working against you. They only work against you when an opponent is present. When you play basketball, or football, or soccer, time is counting down, and it's counting down whether or not your opponent is actively playing against you or not.
Starcraft 2 has nothing like that. The term "deathball" wasn't coded into the game or designed for the game, but it is a result of not having a Neutral Opposition and Blizzard balancing their game around max supply armies (hence "Max level theory")
|
On October 27 2012 00:49 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport. 5/5 for saying baseball isn't a sport <3
Same haha. I will say that hitting a fastball is probably the hardest feat to accomplish in sports in general, but the sport as a whole is pretty weak. I've never seen so many "athletes" sitting around doing nothing for so long in my life.
|
@op writer
I gave that a thought and dont quite understand what you mean by "working against you". In soccer the clock isnt really working against you unless you are behind, if you are ahead its working for you.
If what you say ist true and the time limit in soccer is a factor that rises the skill ceiling/competitiveness (not shure if this is what you meant anyway) then you could simply add a time limit to sc2 matches and it would solve the problem that sc2 is not competitive enough. But that seems rather unprobable to me.
|
On October 27 2012 00:13 jpak wrote:
1/5 for saying that baseball is not a sport.
idem
|
On October 27 2012 03:49 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 00:28 caradoc wrote:
-limited resources, unlimited need to spend them
-limited degree to which one can multitask, unlimited need to do so
-limited cap on APM in battles, unlimited demand to control every unit, have time slowed to 1/100th normal speed, etc.
I don't really understand your perspective, at all.
Did you want 1v1 to be on those stupid lava maps from the campaign, or there to be bands of neutral creeps that come around and rampage peoples bases randomly?
Also, a deathball isn't a 'level'. A 'level' or a 'max level' is a tier of sorts that is hard coded into the game experience. A deathball is an effective strategy that arises as an effective strategy due to a range of disparate factors-- unit clumping, stacking, splash damage, unit synergy, map size, unit speeds, etc etc etc. It wasn't designed into the game, therefore it makes no sense to talk about it as though it were. None of those are working against you. They only work against you when an opponent is present. When you play basketball, or football, or soccer, time is counting down, and it's counting down whether or not your opponent is actively playing against you or not. Starcraft 2 has nothing like that. The term "deathball" wasn't coded into the game or designed for the game, but it is a result of not having a Neutral Opposition and Blizzard balancing their game around max supply armies (hence "Max level theory")
What's the theory... I read your other blog, and I re-read this one, I don't see any kind of theory...
I really have a hard time understanding what you mean. What does a deathball have to do with a max level? Why is getting a deathball a theory? How does having a timer help with anything like this? Tennis and golf and billiards and chess and competitive swimming or running or pretty much any individual olympic sport don't have countdown timers either?
|
Canada11496 Posts
I just really don't think the level system took much time to code. Not enough to get worked up to say they should be fixing other things. Are there other things they need to look at? Yeah. Is this going to fix the competitive part? No, but Blizzard wasn't trying to with leveling. I'm pretty sure they're aware this is not a game play fix. Now granted the actual system isn't much different the current portrait system, but it's a pretty minor thing in the grand scheme of HotS development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
