| Blogs > qxc |
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
I hope to see you playing lotv, but if you choose not to, then I really want to see you commentating matches. Pro level knowledge brings so much to commentating that regular casters can't match (no flame here, it's just the nature of the beast). You're offline intros make the the others bland by comparison! Please keep posting your thoughts. I'd love to hear of your future plans. | ||
|
LuckyGnomTV
Russian Federation367 Posts
p.s. Also there was a lot of cool things like clan ladder, community chat rooms, best players of a season got into a different "pro-ladder" with only 200 players, where they kept fighting for a slot at qualifiers for blizzcon. | ||
|
MChrome
Netherlands201 Posts
Lower leagues have no cohesion and are usually filled with inactive players, especially in gold and below where sometimes only 10-20 people are actively playing the game. It makes the ladder seem completely useless and further demotivates people to play, as qxc mentioned the granularity of progress is lost. More feedback is needed, especially for diamond and below, for players to gauge their progress. The LoL division thing mentioned is a good start, but i would argue that you would have to judge on activity on ALL levels, not just GM. Maybe use the bonus pool there as well, or something like 5 games a week minimum. When you don't reach that, you don't get demoted though, but 'put aside' and removed from any rankings, untill you start playing actively again. This motivates people to keep playing since both groups will have a much better way to gauge their progress (no inactive players filling ladders, actual active players in a ladder to compare yourself to). | ||
|
KaZeFenrir
United States37 Posts
It seems kind of like you have 2 opposite opinions for the same player base. They're casual, but for whatever reason they care about ladder rankings and placement, but also about the legitimacy of GM and how their ranking is displayed? Most of that seems like a more than casual player's concerns, if casual here means they just get on a few hours a week to play a few games. Which is a thing we need to define if we are gonna keep talking about how we need to entice them and retain them. What is a casual player here exactly? The ladder needs work outside of that, regardless, just would be nice to know we are on the same page (since Blizzard also keeps making changes based on the casual crowd). I feel like there're enough great ideas for how to fix SC or make it great from so many different people that there needs to be a Kickstarter for something new already. Not to be a douche or anything, just see so many of these awesome threads and it feels like begging Blizzard to make a game they don't want to. Do you think DOTA or lol would have been kickstarted today? | ||
|
Riquiz
Netherlands402 Posts
It might just make you stay in the lower leagues for way too long then? Or would it let you skip all the bullshit? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 28 2015 19:08 Riquiz wrote: I am probably wrong about this, but would the incremental goals thing not slow you down a lot if you, for example, get a new account for whatever reason? It might just make you stay in the lower leagues for way too long then? Or would it let you skip all the bullshit? yeah I don't think this is what he's saying. He's saying you should be rewarded for small leaps, but this doesn't preclude big leaps as well. | ||
|
Silvana
3713 Posts
Also RenSC2's idea is pretty cool! So little people play in my country I bet I'll be among the top 50 despite being a gold leaguer ^-^ | ||
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
Cos you know, the ladders are there in hots! So clearly there is something else going on behind the scenes that means they haven't added ranked yet. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
Better to give us a new main GUI than waste 1 second on this irrelevant issue. Starcraft ladder hahahahaha this joke always makes me laugh so much ps : hi LDaVinci :p | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On May 28 2015 02:25 qxc wrote: The majority of people that play Starcraft are terrible compared to GM/progamers and by hiding some information they can get a higher percentage of those people continuing to play. How do you know this? I feel like this idea is on par with all the wanna-be Freuds coming out of Psych 101 that think they're experts on everything now. People put forth a hypothesis like this and we can all understand why it might be true and how it makes some sense, but where is the proof? On May 28 2015 02:25 qxc wrote: I support this approach because without a casual player base, the competitive scene will stagnate. It probably won't die for a long time, but without the influx of new players, the pro scene will not grow. Thus, efforts to increase retention at lower skill levels make a lot of sense. Ok so even if the idea is true and we do get MORE people, that still doesn't mean that we're in the best situation for the game as an esport. If you get the wrong kind of people and the culture of the scene shifts, then you're creating something else entirely. Personally I look back to how things were when I got into competitive gaming and what analogous situations I've experienced in life (competitive academic scene, competitive sports scene, etc) and think about how things are set up there. Class rankings and grades and test scores and percentiles are brutally honest. Sports results and rankings are brutally honest. The systems I've seen that aren't brutally honest and are more geared toward participation are NOT breeding grounds from which competitive people emerge. Maybe it's all they have access to and so they take what they can get but it's not what competitive people want. I haven't seen casuals supporting competitors in anything in life and I don't know why SC2 could be the exception. If it's gotta be this way, then I'd say have the top 20% of the ladder be a brutally honest accurate and clear ladder ranking and let the bottom 80% be full of whatever it is the casual players are seeking. Then at least everyone who wants to be in a competitive atmosphere and has some aptitude for it can get there and the top 20% can be their first goal. On May 28 2015 02:25 qxc wrote: Say what you will about this approach, the truth is that Starcraft is made by a business and that business needs people to play their game. Aren't many people who are discouraged by ladder playing the game just for the campaign? Once they've bought LotV, it doesn't matter how much they play multiplayer. There's no subscription or microtransactions or anything. I honestly have a poor understanding of what Blizzard's doing with SC2 as an esport because I feel like I see a lot of conflicting evidence. I don't know what their vision is and what their goals are. They make a grand campaign and sell boxes for it. They put effort into making the multiplayer a good competitive game but it's not free to play and it has no way to generate money (other than licenses for tournaments and broadcasts?). They make games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm (and I'm guessing Overwatch will be similar) so it's not like they're ignorant or unwilling to get away from selling boxes for campaigns. I dunno what to think of it. They could even do both models at once -- making the campaign and selling access to it doesn't stop them from developing a free-to-play esports-based multiplayer with microtransactions. I really don't know if they want SC2 to be as big as possible because they're not bothering to set themselves up to profit much from it. I honestly suspect they'd rather have people playing Hearthstone, Heroes, Overwatch or WoW than play SC2. Buy LotV for the campaign and to dabble in the multiplayer, but then go back to one of those other games long term. All this to say fuck it, don't make SC2 multiplayer for the masses, make it for the hardcore players. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote: How do you know this? I feel like this idea is on par with all the wanna-be Freuds coming out of Psych 101 that think they're experts on everything now. People put forth a hypothesis like this and we can all understand why it might be true and how it makes some sense, but where is the proof? Ok so even if the idea is true and we do get MORE people, that still doesn't mean that we're in the best situation for the game as an esport. If you get the wrong kind of people and the culture of the scene shifts, then you're creating something else entirely. Personally I look back to how things were when I got into competitive gaming and what analogous situations I've experienced in life (competitive academic scene, competitive sports scene, etc) and think about how things are set up there. Class rankings and grades and test scores and percentiles are brutally honest. Sports results and rankings are brutally honest. The systems I've seen that aren't brutally honest and are more geared toward participation are NOT breeding grounds from which competitive people emerge. Maybe it's all they have access to and so they take what they can get but it's not what competitive people want. I haven't seen casuals supporting competitors in anything in life and I don't know why SC2 could be the exception. If it's gotta be this way, then I'd say have the top 20% of the ladder be a brutally honest accurate and clear ladder ranking and let the bottom 80% be full of whatever it is the casual players are seeking. Then at least everyone who wants to be in a competitive atmosphere and has some aptitude for it can get there and the top 20% can be their first goal. Aren't many people who are discouraged by ladder playing the game just for the campaign? Once they've bought LotV, it doesn't matter how much they play multiplayer. There's no subscription or microtransactions or anything. I honestly have a poor understanding of what Blizzard's doing with SC2 as an esport because I feel like I see a lot of conflicting evidence. I don't know what their vision is and what their goals are. They make a grand campaign and sell boxes for it. They put effort into making the multiplayer a good competitive game but it's not free to play and it has no way to generate money (other than licenses for tournaments and broadcasts?). They make games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm (and I'm guessing Overwatch will be similar) so it's not like they're ignorant or unwilling to get away from selling boxes for campaigns. I dunno what to think of it. They could even do both models at once -- making the campaign and selling access to it doesn't stop them from developing a free-to-play esports-based multiplayer with microtransactions. I really don't know if they want SC2 to be as big as possible because they're not bothering to set themselves up to profit much from it. I honestly suspect they'd rather have people playing Hearthstone, Heroes, Overwatch or WoW than play SC2. Buy LotV for the campaign and to dabble in the multiplayer, but then go back to one of those other games long term. All this to say fuck it, don't make SC2 multiplayer for the masses, make it for the hardcore players. A good competitive game ? When was that? because we cant say that sc2 is "finish".... I agree about the conflict with their p2w and sc2, there is less profit in it. However an rts player doesnt care about overwatch, heroes, hearthstone and Wow. If sc2 is dead, i uninstall B.net launcher. Simple^^. So i think they'll will still put efforts in sc2 in order to increase their raw number. Most funny is that they dont really need to do to many things in order to attract more casual players. They thought they could jump on the train, i just hope they dont crash it :S If sc2 become an only hardcoreplayers game, you can uninstall and come back to BW.  | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote: How do you know this? I feel like this idea is on par with all the wanna-be Freuds coming out of Psych 101 that think they're experts on everything now. People put forth a hypothesis like this and we can all understand why it might be true and how it makes some sense, but where is the proof? Rob Pardo did an extremely long interview on Designer Notes where he touched on this a little bit basically said they found player retention is best when the system is more hidden - I think he used that carrot dangling analogy too. He actually went on to say that for SC2 in some ways the matchmaking is too good, in the sense that when people have a lot of really close games it makes the whole experience too intense for most players and there is some value in giving people harder/easier games throughout a play session (though this is a separate issue than displayed ranks). It doesn't apply to most people reading TL but is an interesting aside to the matchmaking system. All in all I do think qxc is right as far as how the system rewards you and that for the goal of supporting less serious competitors, the HS and Heroes systems achieve it better. Personally I miss iccup which was brutal, but a great way to legitimately know where someone was on the skill gradient to a very fine degree. I think that world may be gone however. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On May 29 2015 02:02 Heyoka wrote: Personally I miss iccup which was brutal, but a great way to legitimately know where someone was on the skill gradient to a very fine degree. I think that world may be gone however. I suspect that the old iCCup system would only work in a smaller game, which is probably not what Blizzard wants to develop. The most I've ever seen on iCCup was some 15k players simultaneously. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
|
Bradwan
4 Posts
On May 29 2015 02:26 IntoTheheart wrote: I suspect that the old iCCup system would only work in a smaller game, which is probably not what Blizzard wants to develop. The most I've ever seen on iCCup was some 15k players simultaneously. Been Saying that for weeks now on Reddit. Loved the ICCup system. Main reason. I picked the maps I wanted to play. So i can play the maps the Pros are playing. Also, I could play Python all day long if i felt like it. | ||
|
joshie0808
Canada1023 Posts
| ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
On May 29 2015 02:45 Bradwan wrote: Been Saying that for weeks now on Reddit. Loved the ICCup system. Main reason. I picked the maps I wanted to play. So i can play the maps the Pros are playing. Also, I could play Python all day long if i felt like it. Also iCCup required a motivation for 1v1, it was standing apart. It was the "real deal"^^. I think it can work on sc2 too there is not many pple that want to reach toprank/level. | ||
|
awerti
227 Posts
If you are very good and mass game, you can get to top rank fast. Top korean players climb ranks very fast. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
lohdon
170 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On May 29 2015 03:14 awerti wrote: Why does the ladder has to have different leagues though? I am a Broodwar player, but I don't see much wrong with the ladder system on Russian Iccup and Korean Fish servers, for example. 20k players online on Fish, everyone has ELO points. Letters are assigned to different point ranges, for example, A,B,C,D,E,F... Everyone can play everyone. If you are very good and mass game, you can get to top rank fast. Top korean players climb ranks very fast. Just my 2 cents. I don't know about different leagues, but I think there is something to more increments. SC2 has 7 different ranks from Bronze to GM. iCCup has 5 different ranks from D to S. On the surface it looks like iCCup has the worse system. However, excluding S, every rank has three subdivisions D-, D, D+, C-, C, C+, etc. I think that's quite a nice as we wind up with 13 separate milestones. I think there's something significant to having subdivisions that helps show where you rank. Adding more precious metals as distinct ranks would muddy the water: uranium? unobtanium? mithril? I don't think a longer list of ranks is terribly helpful. At some point it becomes a bit meaningless. But having three divisions within each existing rank (Plat I, II, and III or Plat -, Plat, and Plat +) helps give you a sense of where you are in your improvement- greater than the more fuzzy 'high plat' 'low plat.' There is a distinct threshold you cross within a rank and that feels good. And even with a more gradient system, people still use high, low. I say I am a high D Protoss, or very, very low D+ Protoss. | ||
| ||
|
|
FEL
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
