|
On May 30 2015 04:13 Textual wrote:
Figuring out how to get more people playing is black magic. Is it because of ladder anxiety? Is it because RTS is unpopular these days? Is it because gaming is becoming increasingly social and SC2's social system hasn't kept up? Is it because SC2 sold out to Moloch and became too easy and simple, as the BW soothsayers say? That, or it's too difficult and complex for the masses. Maybe it's too easy AND it's too difficult?
Only wizards can know this stuff without actually studying it. Empirically.
qxc tried to analyze decisions about the ladder based on studies about player retention. That's the right idea, in my mind (though obviously would be better if those studies were cited), and I think decisions about the ladder's future should be made not by sorcery and pontifications, but by studying what makes system best suits the target audience.
I have sacrifice a black cat and a purple goat.
Ladder anxiety comes from the lack of other stimulus except ladder stuff during B.Net experience. To counteract this, just add one thing so the brain can relax.
The RTS genre is not unpopular. It's just a bit stuck. Paradox Development Studio and The Creative Assembly can explain it better. They have been cloning universalis and total war for the last 5 years.
50/50. The fact that gaming is becoming social just contributes to increase the gap created by the lack of sc2's social system. It's a corrolation not a causality.
BW soothsayers' arguments are still halfvalid because sc2 isnt finished yet so when BliBli has come up with a solution with their macro's choice we'll see.
Nothing is too difficult or complex for the masses. If they fail to understand, that's just mean your explanation was bad^^ Sc2 can be easy or difficult, it depends on the level you want to reach.
|
On May 29 2015 11:03 weikor wrote:
I think the main reason for starcraft 2 losing popularity amongst casuals is plain and simple that its way too difficult to learn for new players, and while i agree that the league systam can be improved - its pretty O.K
Ive watched my cousin play, and while he actually wanted to try this game - he was forced to give up, simply because the mechanics were too demanding. Its great for pro players, or players that have huge tendencies to push themselves - but for the avarage casual - its just too difficult.
Maybe you just pushed him too much?
You can play a rts game, have fun and be absolutely terrible all at the same time.
As long as you are not playing against someone who is 100x better than you.
Let him play vs the easy ai and just explain to build eco so he can make some units etc... that's all.
And on topic, I would love 1 big classic elo style ladder.
Never got the point of these isolated 100 player ladders.
You can still attach ''diamond - master'' etc to certain ranks if that's what you want to do.
|
I really wish you guys luck in (a) having any influence at all on Blizzard and (b) making a workable system if you do influence them.
For the longest time I've simply been too afraid and stressed out to play SC2. Part of it might come from the ladder, but for the most part I think its embedded in the nature of the gameplay itself. Frantically trying to control hundreds of units all at once in order to beat your opponent is a skill that only a small subset of any gaming community has - I don't think anyone should have expected SC2 to retain many players for very long beyond the initial novelty and entertainment value of seeing new units. I do wonder how many people played Brood War in its heyday - I know I played a lot of custom games, but I think it must have also been a terribly niche game, but one which was extremely entertaining to watch good players play at. Maybe that's the reason it survived for so long?
Back to SC2, the whole requirement of intensely studying your opponent's openings in order to precisely identify builds and timings is a pretty arduous affair, and the fact that a small miscalculation means you die to some all-in is way more problematic (and frustrating) than ladder.
I know that maybe this isn't your main focus, but in the end I think these points about the ladder may end up being moot or only slightly beneficial at best. Still SC2 was a pretty solid game overall, I just wish I didn't have to have an anxiety attack every time I pressed 'find match'.
On May 30 2015 19:55 Technique wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 11:03 weikor wrote:
I think the main reason for starcraft 2 losing popularity amongst casuals is plain and simple that its way too difficult to learn for new players, and while i agree that the league systam can be improved - its pretty O.K
Ive watched my cousin play, and while he actually wanted to try this game - he was forced to give up, simply because the mechanics were too demanding. Its great for pro players, or players that have huge tendencies to push themselves - but for the avarage casual - its just too difficult.
Maybe you just pushed him too much? You can play a rts game, have fun and be absolutely terrible all at the same time. As long as you are not playing against someone who is 100x better than you...
But its the nature of any game that as you play you will naturally want to win. Its a subtle but insidious pressure that forces you to try to macro and micro just a little bit better each time. If you resist the urge to play better you feel bad because in your mind you are surrendering, and its just not a pleasant feeling I suppose. Unless the goal of the game is explicitly to have fun (i.e. some custom game), the built-in system of progression will put a pressure on every player to macro and micro as hard as they can. Which is naturally stressful and unpleasant.
There are some games in which this stress to perform better is fun - like Text Twist for example, is an entertaining game to get better at. I think SC2 is different in that it has multitasking to the max, and pressure you to multitask better every game, and it can feel like you're frantically trying to do a hundred things at once (there is no upper limit either)...not a good mixture for casual entertainment, *especially* with all the all-ins you have to be paranoid about if you don't scout well enough (while taking care of dozens of other things of course).
|
On May 31 2015 09:30 radscorpion9 wrote:I really wish you guys luck in (a) having any influence at all on Blizzard and (b) making a workable system if you do influence them. For the longest time I've simply been too afraid and stressed out to play SC2. Part of it might come from the ladder, but for the most part I think its embedded in the nature of the gameplay itself. Frantically trying to control hundreds of units all at once in order to beat your opponent is a skill that only a small subset of any gaming community has - I don't think anyone should have expected SC2 to retain many players for very long beyond the initial novelty and entertainment value of seeing new units. I do wonder how many people played Brood War in its heyday - I know I played a lot of custom games, but I think it must have also been a terribly niche game, but one which was extremely entertaining to watch good players play at. Maybe that's the reason it survived for so long? Back to SC2, the whole requirement of intensely studying your opponent's openings in order to precisely identify builds and timings is a pretty arduous affair, and the fact that a small miscalculation means you die to some all-in is way more problematic (and frustrating) than ladder. I know that maybe this isn't your main focus, but in the end I think these points about the ladder may end up being moot or only slightly beneficial at best. Still SC2 was a pretty solid game overall, I just wish I didn't have to have an anxiety attack every time I pressed 'find match'. Show nested quote +On May 30 2015 19:55 Technique wrote:On May 29 2015 11:03 weikor wrote:
I think the main reason for starcraft 2 losing popularity amongst casuals is plain and simple that its way too difficult to learn for new players, and while i agree that the league systam can be improved - its pretty O.K
Ive watched my cousin play, and while he actually wanted to try this game - he was forced to give up, simply because the mechanics were too demanding. Its great for pro players, or players that have huge tendencies to push themselves - but for the avarage casual - its just too difficult.
Maybe you just pushed him too much? You can play a rts game, have fun and be absolutely terrible all at the same time. As long as you are not playing against someone who is 100x better than you... But its the nature of any game that as you play you will naturally want to win. Its a subtle but insidious pressure that forces you to try to macro and micro just a little bit better each time. If you resist the urge to play better you feel bad because in your mind you are surrendering, and its just not a pleasant feeling I suppose. Unless the goal of the game is explicitly to have fun (i.e. some custom game), the built-in system of progression will put a pressure on every player to macro and micro as hard as they can. Which is naturally stressful and unpleasant. There are some games in which this stress to perform better is fun - like Text Twist for example, is an entertaining game to get better at. I think SC2 is different in that it has multitasking to the max, and pressure you to multitask better every game, and it can feel like you're frantically trying to do a hundred things at once (there is no upper limit either)...not a good mixture for casual entertainment, *especially* with all the all-ins you have to be paranoid about if you don't scout well enough (while taking care of dozens of other things of course).
TL being the first website about sc2 and this topic being one of the fews about GUI. Dont worry about a and b :p
Why are so stressed out to play sc2 ? Because you sacralise too much your ladder experience. Find a match, here it's begin. You start thinking about what strat you're going to do ? but what if CR ? or proxy ? he's random nooooo!!! I have to scout, oups 3 secondes delay on the pilon, etc^^
The nature of the game is ofc focused on speed and prediction (epm/strategy). Sc2's macro mechanics are easier to perform compared to BW but are faster so adrealine rush will build up quicker and sooner. You explained it very well. Also, every game, you'll have a different opponent on a different map, your skills progression will be erratic. In BW, there was no real "ladder" like sc2 for a really long time, ums, ums, ums^^. Also in 2002-2004(heyday) it was mostly LAN so after a 1v1, i could speak with my opponent for 1 hour about our game. Or play 20 time on the same map to train a strat.
In my opinion, it was less stressfull to play 1v1 on BW because each mechanics were a lot harder(macro= brind harvester 1b1 :p) so there was a lot of ways to win (better macro, better micro, better strat). In sc2, it's hard to outmacro a opponent of the same level.
I think on a daily base it's better to play ums and unranked to just enjoy a sc2 game and if you want a hardcore competitve experience, go for some ladder or a tournament. Unless you want to train your selfcontrol, there no point in adding to the pressure of your duel the pressure of the ladder ranking system.
|
I wonder to what extent the mechanical needs of sc2 inhibit retention at lower levels.
The reason I never got into sc2 ladder is that it just wasn't fun. Battles are fun; but until you get to the very high levels sc2 isn't about doing battles well or strategy; it's about pressing the buttons to keep your economy going at full production all the time.
That and the extent to which "cheeses" were and are commonplace at lower tiers.
|
splitting up the leagues also in divisions I-V wouldnt work in my opinion.
In lower leagues like silver, there are so many unknown variables and its most of the time so unpredicteable who wins there, since there is way too few purpose behind the playing, so that silver 5 player can easy beat silver 1 player and the other way around ofcourse. Wouldnt do anything
|
but i'd like the higher leagues to split up more, Master and Grandmaster should split up more, maybe also diamond
|
On May 28 2015 03:15 RenSC2 wrote:
Thanks for posting.
Another good blog post and I agree that the ladder is due for some changes. The ladder divisions have always been meaningless. I'm stuck with 99 people I don't care about, nearly 100% of whom I will never play or interact with in any way. So, the system that was created was crap from the beginning and is in need of a big change. And that's not to mention the absolute mess that is GM.
However, I'd go a more radical route from your suggestions.
I think you should belong to multiple divisions based on geography. You'd have a local division, which for Americans could be based on zip code. Then you have a regional division which would break the country up into a few different regions (for many countries, the region could be the whole country). And finally you'd have your worldwide (or server-wide) rank. Divisions would no longer be made of 100 people. Instead, they'd be built naturally based on the number of people in your area.
For example, I'm from a suburb of Chicago. I think it'd be pretty cool to have a division of other people only from my suburb. Wouldn't it be motivating to try to be the best person in your city? That seems like something to compete for. It would also encourage socialization ("all these people are local?"), which could eventually lead to local lans and tournaments. If necessary, Blizzard could combine a couple zip codes to make the local ladder slightly more competitive in low-density areas.
From here, we could then have a regional ladder that for me would include the Midwest (or maybe just Illinois). Maybe I wouldn't be so competitive at this level, so I stick to paying attention to the local ladder. For others, it would be nice to compete to be a regional champion. And if you're from a European country, it could mean being the country's champion.
And then we have a server-wide (or preferably world-wide) ladder where the best can battle. As for the worldwide ranking, I'd recommend giving everyone a percentile rather than seeing a ladder of people. If they're below the top 50%, then just say "less than 50%" (and they should focus on local rankings for incremental improvement). At 50% and higher, show the players their percentage. That gives them a resolution of 1% (or 50 different ticks), which will include many moves up and down as a player plays.
As a reward for making it into the top 1% (or 2%, 5%, 10%), then show them an actual ladder and give them a ranking on the worldwide ladder.
Aside from QXC his post this looks pretty amazing.
|
I think there are privacy issues with local leagues. I certainly don't want other players to know where I live. I mean, you would be able to locate anyone to within a few km. Imagine the real life threats people would pull out.
|
Very well written and thought out post, totally agree with this. Its baffling how Blizz can make so many good calls in other games but fail so miserably with SC2 ladder system. They should know why incremental rewards are important since the implement in many of their other games.
|
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right.
|
On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right.
Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^
I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues
|
On June 04 2015 00:59 Cazimirbzh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right. Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^ I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues
Well the thing is that I believe, the ladder itself is not the biggest problem right now. To be completely honest I don't think it's a problem at all.
I just cannot imagine that people left the game because they feel "inferior" or under pressure or whatever. Most of my friends/people left because of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking, Starcraft beeing too complex/demanding (which is completely fine in my opinion I do not, under any circumstance, want SC2 to get more casual), Protoss too easy to use in lower leagues (debatable) and some other reasons like smurfs/maphackers/etc... But no one left because of the lack of incremental goals.
That beeing said; I'm completely aware that this topic is specifically about the ladder and not Sc 2 in general. I just wanted to point out, that there are other/more important things to be fixed/changed than the ladder.
|
On June 04 2015 07:28 JoeCool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 00:59 Cazimirbzh wrote:On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right. Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^ I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues Well the thing is that I believe, the ladder itself is not the biggest problem right now. To be completely honest I don't think it's a problem at all. I just cannot imagine that people left the game because they feel "inferior" or under pressure or whatever. Most of my friends/people left because of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking, Starcraft beeing too complex/demanding (which is completely fine in my opinion I do not, under any circumstance, want SC2 to get more casual), Protoss too easy to use in lower leagues (debatable) and some other reasons like smurfs/maphackers/etc... But no one left because of the lack of incremental goals. That beeing said; I'm completely aware that this topic is specifically about the ladder and not Sc 2 in general. I just wanted to point out, that there are other/more important things to be fixed/changed than the ladder.
No one is "asking" for incremental goals directly. They are complaining about the insufficiency of the current goals.
How many people talk about something akin to:
"I'm X league but I keep facing X+1 leagues so obviously I'm Y league but the ladder system sucks"
Or
"Once I get out of X league all these cheesy noobs (which I'm not btw) will finally be gone and my 1337 skillz will finally be allowed to shine"
Or
"I'm really a high _____, and I'm just waiting to get promoted"
etc...
Most people need small goals they can collect and accrue. Like having to kill rats and wolves in the first levels of dungeons. Something tangible that gives them an idea how long it will take for them to reach certain levels. No one wants a relative scale where the only way to advance is to be improving faster than your peers.
|
The argument hinges on "Having only 6 (7 with gm) leagues to break up the entire skill base of a highly competitive game like Starcraft is insufficient."
However there are 100 ranks in each division, offering a total of 600 ranks with GM on top.
|
On June 04 2015 08:23 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 07:28 JoeCool wrote:On June 04 2015 00:59 Cazimirbzh wrote:On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right. Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^ I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues Well the thing is that I believe, the ladder itself is not the biggest problem right now. To be completely honest I don't think it's a problem at all. I just cannot imagine that people left the game because they feel "inferior" or under pressure or whatever. Most of my friends/people left because of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking, Starcraft beeing too complex/demanding (which is completely fine in my opinion I do not, under any circumstance, want SC2 to get more casual), Protoss too easy to use in lower leagues (debatable) and some other reasons like smurfs/maphackers/etc... But no one left because of the lack of incremental goals. That beeing said; I'm completely aware that this topic is specifically about the ladder and not Sc 2 in general. I just wanted to point out, that there are other/more important things to be fixed/changed than the ladder. No one is "asking" for incremental goals directly. They are complaining about the insufficiency of the current goals. How many people talk about something akin to: "I'm X league but I keep facing X+1 leagues so obviously I'm Y league but the ladder system sucks" Or "Once I get out of X league all these cheesy noobs (which I'm not btw) will finally be gone and my 1337 skillz will finally be allowed to shine" Or "I'm really a high _____, and I'm just waiting to get promoted" etc... Most people need small goals they can collect and accrue. Like having to kill rats and wolves in the first levels of dungeons. Something tangible that gives them an idea how long it will take for them to reach certain levels. No one wants a relative scale where the only way to advance is to be improving faster than your peers.
I know, I do understand what qxc and a couple of players are trying to say. I'm just asking myself whether this is really a problem that makes people leave Sc 2.
|
On June 04 2015 19:35 JoeCool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:23 TMagpie wrote:On June 04 2015 07:28 JoeCool wrote:On June 04 2015 00:59 Cazimirbzh wrote:On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right. Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^ I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues Well the thing is that I believe, the ladder itself is not the biggest problem right now. To be completely honest I don't think it's a problem at all. I just cannot imagine that people left the game because they feel "inferior" or under pressure or whatever. Most of my friends/people left because of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking, Starcraft beeing too complex/demanding (which is completely fine in my opinion I do not, under any circumstance, want SC2 to get more casual), Protoss too easy to use in lower leagues (debatable) and some other reasons like smurfs/maphackers/etc... But no one left because of the lack of incremental goals. That beeing said; I'm completely aware that this topic is specifically about the ladder and not Sc 2 in general. I just wanted to point out, that there are other/more important things to be fixed/changed than the ladder. No one is "asking" for incremental goals directly. They are complaining about the insufficiency of the current goals. How many people talk about something akin to: "I'm X league but I keep facing X+1 leagues so obviously I'm Y league but the ladder system sucks" Or "Once I get out of X league all these cheesy noobs (which I'm not btw) will finally be gone and my 1337 skillz will finally be allowed to shine" Or "I'm really a high _____, and I'm just waiting to get promoted" etc... Most people need small goals they can collect and accrue. Like having to kill rats and wolves in the first levels of dungeons. Something tangible that gives them an idea how long it will take for them to reach certain levels. No one wants a relative scale where the only way to advance is to be improving faster than your peers. I know, I do understand what qxc and a couple of players are trying to say. I'm just asking myself whether this is really a problem that makes people leave Sc 2.
Its two things actually:
Emphasis that ladder is more skilled than arcade + ladder never feeling rewarding on a game by game comparison
In BW and WC3, most people played UMS because fuck the actual game. Which is why moneymaps and dota became so big.
In SC2, the culture is that unless you can emulate Parting and Maru then you suck as a human being.
So people ladder to emulate pros--and then feel like shit because they can't split like Innovation even though they only play 1-2 games every 1-2 days.
It is 110% the reason people leave.
|
On June 04 2015 07:28 JoeCool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 00:59 Cazimirbzh wrote:On June 02 2015 22:51 JoeCool wrote:
Before changing the ladder Blizzard should take care of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking. Right now it is worse than ever! Silver players getting matched against diamond/plat 40% of the time isn't fun. For neither of both parties... no surprise people quit left and right. Are you saying that they should take care of 2v2 before 1v1 ? ^^ I agree with you on this issue, i am diamond and i dont like to play vs/with silver/gold in teamgame and be insulted because i am "not supposed to play vs lowleagues Well the thing is that I believe, the ladder itself is not the biggest problem right now. To be completely honest I don't think it's a problem at all. I just cannot imagine that people left the game because they feel "inferior" or under pressure or whatever. Most of my friends/people left because of the awful 2vs2 matchmaking, Starcraft beeing too complex/demanding (which is completely fine in my opinion I do not, under any circumstance, want SC2 to get more casual), Protoss too easy to use in lower leagues (debatable) and some other reasons like smurfs/maphackers/etc... But no one left because of the lack of incremental goals. That beeing said; I'm completely aware that this topic is specifically about the ladder and not Sc 2 in general. I just wanted to point out, that there are other/more important things to be fixed/changed than the ladder.
It's the same issue. the system is the same for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. But each mmr is different. I started to play on US for fun (3v3, delay challenge^^). it wasnt fun for me nor for my opponents because i had to climb the ladder. This kind of situation happens also the other way around. I was top EU 4v4 and it was very annoying when some gold players(pure luck/grind) was in my team. This 'll always happen. I stop playing, i'll be back asap and some poor little newbies must suffer and i dont like it  I feel like i am smurfing :S
1v1 mmr should have the most importance ? but i dont know what kind of restrictions BliBli should apply to team mmr in order to prevent huge gap of skill. Seems hard in order to have a quick game.
edit: Also seems to hard to add a 2v2 ladder chat.
|
Very well put by QXC. Hoping blizzard refreshes/revives things a lot.
|
On May 28 2015 03:15 RenSC2 wrote:
Thanks for posting.
Another good blog post and I agree that the ladder is due for some changes. The ladder divisions have always been meaningless. I'm stuck with 99 people I don't care about, nearly 100% of whom I will never play or interact with in any way. So, the system that was created was crap from the beginning and is in need of a big change. And that's not to mention the absolute mess that is GM.
However, I'd go a more radical route from your suggestions.
I think you should belong to multiple divisions based on geography. You'd have a local division, which for Americans could be based on zip code. Then you have a regional division which would break the country up into a few different regions (for many countries, the region could be the whole country). And finally you'd have your worldwide (or server-wide) rank. Divisions would no longer be made of 100 people. Instead, they'd be built naturally based on the number of people in your area.
For example, I'm from a suburb of Chicago. I think it'd be pretty cool to have a division of other people only from my suburb. Wouldn't it be motivating to try to be the best person in your city? That seems like something to compete for. It would also encourage socialization ("all these people are local?"), which could eventually lead to local lans and tournaments. If necessary, Blizzard could combine a couple zip codes to make the local ladder slightly more competitive in low-density areas.
From here, we could then have a regional ladder that for me would include the Midwest (or maybe just Illinois). Maybe I wouldn't be so competitive at this level, so I stick to paying attention to the local ladder. For others, it would be nice to compete to be a regional champion. And if you're from a European country, it could mean being the country's champion.
And then we have a server-wide (or preferably world-wide) ladder where the best can battle. As for the worldwide ranking, I'd recommend giving everyone a percentile rather than seeing a ladder of people. If they're below the top 50%, then just say "less than 50%" (and they should focus on local rankings for incremental improvement). At 50% and higher, show the players their percentage. That gives them a resolution of 1% (or 50 different ticks), which will include many moves up and down as a player plays.
As a reward for making it into the top 1% (or 2%, 5%, 10%), then show them an actual ladder and give them a ranking on the worldwide ladder.
I really like this idea. The one thing I'm worried about is low-density areas. For example, if you're an SC2 player in Montana, there aren't many people in general around you, and probably not a lot of SC2 players within reasonable driving distance. Maybe at a basic level it could be regions centered around cities (so in this case, Denver and Calgary could be nearby big cities). But I'd love the change personally. I live in New Jersey, and competing with other people in the New York/Philly areas, or even the whole tri-state area, would be a lot of fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
