|
Starcraft ladder has remained relatively unchanged for a long time now and as with many things that have existed for a long time, issues have become more and more apparent.
What is the purpose of ladder? In a society of robots, it would strictly be a number that represents your skill similar to Chess. While I cannot cite a particular source, it's likely that studies have shown that placing people's skill in reference to the best is discouraging and bad for player retention. Thus, systems where localized relative skill is shown have become more common. Localized and relative skill means that the ladder only directly compares you against people that are relatively close to your mmr. This approach helps increase player retention and makes people feel progress as they do better against their immediate opponents, and when someone gets 'too good' to compete with, they get bumped out of the comparison (promoted).
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. If the ladder is designed in a way that is discouraging people from playing, then it needs to be fixed. 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. 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.
That being said, Starcraft does not provide enough milestones for players. We scoff at people who claim to be 'top diamond/low master' because often it feels like those people just believe in their heads that they're low master but if they really were then the system would've promoted them already. Having only 6 (7 with gm) leagues to break up the entire skill base of a highly competitive game like Starcraft is insufficient. League of Legends built on Starcraft's league system by building divisions within each league. This would be the equivalent of every league except gm being split into 5 smaller leagues, bronze I-V, silver I-V and so forth. This creates more incremental goals and helps the 'carrot' effect. If you string out a goal ahead of a player just far enough that they have to make some effort to achieve it, but still close enough that they feel it's within reach they will be more likely to stretch for it. The issue right now is that there are not enough incremental goals and the jump from one league to another is too large. It's not hard to imagine the player that grinds for some number of seasons and finally gives up out of frustration because they feel like they've made little to no progress.
Transparency is another issue with the current ladder system. It's very hard to tell when you're going to be promoted. If there was some # that you had to reach to be promoted (unclear exactly how this would work with bonus pool) then people could see how close/far they were. By making each increment relatively small, the next tier will never feel too far away.
We can see this mindset taken even further in games in more recent times. Hearthstone provides 25 ranks before it gets to the equivalent 'gm' league and heroes of the storm provides 50 ranks. The point is that by providing smaller incremental 'skill achievements' in the form of an actual badge, the player base can get more frequent positive reinforcement which would hopefully help player retention.
All of this logic goes out the window for GM. GM players do not need positive reinforcement in the same way. They can be compared to the best players on the server because they are the best players on the server. Player retention for gm players is a bit different than other leagues. Most gm players play because they enjoy the game at a much deeper level than others, and one of the biggest reasons gm players quit (in my experience) is because their friends stop playing. As long as their friends play and are interested in the game, they will probably keep playing. The localized skill comparisons and incremental achievements would help in retaining the lower skilled players which will in turn help retain higher skilled players as they feel more value in their skill and have this activity to bond/socialize over.
That being said, the single biggest thing wrong with GM right now is that it's not actually the top 200 players on a server. It's not a rolling and re-evaulating league. If you get into GM, all you have to do is play games to stay there. This makes the entire gm a bit of a farce as players make it in early in the season and end up doing poorly and don't really belong there while other players are unable to make it in because the slots are full.
GM should be a cut throat league where only the strong remain. Bonus pool could still be used in GM to measure activity and be an automatic boot if a player is inactive for too long. Besides that, gm would be a rolling and constantly updated top 200 players in a server. Similar to hearthstone, it may make sense to allow more than the top 200 to enter GM, but then have a leaderboard like it is now that only shows the top 200. It's unclear exactly how transparency would work if you were going from masters to gm and back based in a constantly updated scheme.
This would give more meaning to GM and make it feel more legitimate while also encouraging additional competition at the highest level. The changes at lower leagues would help encourage lower skilled players to continue on by giving them more incremental goals of a transparent nature so they know how close they are to that next promotion. All in all, ladder at lower leagues would help player retention while still giving players a way to assess their skill while ladder at higher leagues would more accurately show who the best players on the server are at any given time.
|
I agree with basically every single thing you say. I wish StarCraft devs would read this as well though...
About bonus pool in GM - why is this necessary? I think it sort of plays against the "top 200" idea. I'm sure the system doesn't need a bonus pool to know whether someone is inactive or not. Players who are on a GM level probably know that they need to stay active to remain in GM. However, bonus pool doesn't make sense to me. Luckily, most top GMs play a lot and normally don't have a bonus pool to speak of, but I really hate the idea because player ranked no. 15 in GM could be no. 15 just because he had some bonus pool to use.
Bonus pool is fine in lower leagues if you ask me, but I really don't understand why you'd use it in GM. It messes with the idea of ranking the top players. What do you think?
|
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 do agree on Starcraft in general being overly focused on the top level of competition, where the meat of the scene is nowhere near that level. It's a bit sad that there's this mindset of "I suck, I need to get better". While it's an admireable thought on the surface, in reality it makes for a culture where everyone is a noob calling out others for sucking. From Bronze to GM is such an ungodly climb, how does a functional person climb all the way up when he's being put down for being a scrub despite getting exponentially better at the game? It's a "not good enough" mindset instead of "I've already made it this far". It's already more stressful to play than most games, then if you win you get greeted with the notion of "yeah you need to be 4x better to be relevant", it just doesn't cater to player retention.
It's like how in football no matter what league you play your games feel relevant and you can celebrate winning a game or putting up a good fight. You don't get constantly reminded you're not Ronaldo since that comparison is out of place and non-sensical.
|
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 your idea! I would help communities grow locally. You might meet people and play with them more readily in team games as well. I d love to see this implemented!
|
On May 28 2015 03:25 Saechiis wrote: I do agree on Starcraft in general being overly focused on the top level of competition, where the meat of the scene is nowhere near that level. It's a bit sad that there's this mindset of "I suck, I need to get better". While it's an admireable thought on the surface, in reality it makes for a culture where everyone is a noob calling out others for sucking. From Bronze to GM is such an ungodly climb, how does a functional person climb all the way up when he's being put down for being a scrub despite getting exponentially better at the game? It's a "not good enough" mindset instead of "I've already made it this far". It's already more stressful to play than most games, then if you win you get greeted with the notion of "yeah you need to be 4x better to be relevant", it just doesn't cater to player retention.
It's like how in football no matter what league you play your games feel relevant and you can celebrate winning a game or putting up a good fight. You don't get constantly reminded you're not Ronaldo since that comparison is out of place and non-sensical. This post sums up what is wrong with SC2, and why the game is rapidly losing its player base. To make matters worse, blizzard does not seem to understand this, and instead decided to make it even harder for normal people to feel even half competent at the game by putting too many spells and abilities in the game.
|
|
you should label your Blog's more clear i think. Had i not read "qxc" as Creator, i would have thought this blog was about Broodwar. good post though, i feel your thoughts are accurate.
|
I agree with the changes to GM, and I agree that change is needed with the rest of the ladder. The actual nature of that change is harder to divine, as creating a strong ladder system is very difficult considering the various different goals of that ladder (giving a measure of skill, encouraging play, matchmaking that looks like it makes sense based on the ladder etc).
Now Blizzard knows how to make a ladder much better than any of us do; they have a large amount of data from their games, and they definitely proved it when they made the Hearthstone ladder. While the community doesn't know its intricacies (e.g Hearthstone uses 100 ranks behind the scenes, not just the 25 visible ones), it definitely has been successful.
I'm really hoping that one of the reasons why Blizzard hasn't rolled out the LotV ladder is that they're planning heavy changes to it to improve the game. Ultimately in this field Blizzard has much more know-how than the community could ever provide, and it really depends on if they're going to use it.
|
I support you completely in this.
|
Imo the game should try to create bonds between players of the same division. Like, trying to make them play each other more often, or giving more importance to each encounter. Also, organizing automated tournaments within the division (when it'll be possible in LotV), and having a division chat channel. I think you would have a greater feeling of being part of a division if this was the case. And if Blizzard can't currently find a game within your division it can always pair you up with some other guy, but if it were me, I would place players in divisions according to the time of the day they play most often, so that they have more chance to play each other reliably. Of course every few games you would probably have to force an encounter with someone outside of the division to see if you're to be demoted or promoted (maybe more frequently when you get to the top or the bottom of the division)
|
I highly support alot of what's being mentioned in the thread, and I hope Blizzard pays attention and picks the viable ideas unless they have better ones. Tbh, I don't think they have better ones.
|
Great post and ideas.
I love that you are looking to borrow from other games with successful models, we should do more of that in sc2.
|
Agreed on GM. Agreed on incremental goals. Agreed on transparency.
If there was an easy way to compare yourself to ALL the diamond players on a server, that would be awesome! I'm in the middle third of skill because my MMR is such and such, I'm about to be in the top third! Yay! Even better if it was more of a recognizable increase like Division 1-IV. Now with bonus pool interactions with ladder divisions, and a high amount of incomparability between divisions, your position within a division means little and your league itself doesn't have a ton of meaning (Once promoted, always promoted.)
It's time for whatever team is in charge of ladders with Blizzard to reimagine a ladder that gives a server clear indicators of where they lie in current performance, and prettier small objectives beyond MMR numbers to strive for.
|
|
Completely agree. Positive gratification is a powerful thing in video games, and I feel like this is done very well in games like LoL, Hearthstone etc.
|
On May 28 2015 02:25 qxc wrote: it's likely that studies have shown that [...] Really? Which studies have shown that that is likely?
When "FACT:" doesn't feel scientific enough, and "I think that" is too honest?
Anyway, I think the problem is that most people ("the casuals", which is not the typical active TL poster) don't really care much to be ranked at all on a server-wide scale. Achievements and sense of progress, yes. Ranked compared to rest of server: not really. They probably care whether they are better than their buddy, but that is a different question. While you know a lot of stuff about sc2, I am not sure you should be regarded as an expert on the casual non competetitive psyche. So let me give my view from within the casual player base, rather than above it.
This is done a bit too often, but anyway: let's compare to sc:bw! A normal custom game in sc:bw wouldn't change any ranking or anything. It'd change your win/loss stats, but most casuals didn't care too much about that, as it wasn't very highlighted. While a 100-10 stat was something to brag about, people knew that it is about choosing your opponents as much as being good at the game.
People that wanted to compete on a ladder had to go through some extra hassle and get iccup or something, but that didn't put pressure on the casuals that probably didn't even know about iccup.
Sc2 on the other hand, ranks your when you go and play default games against other players, and throws your rank and league in your face over and over. It is also pretty accurate, and actually does measure your skill compared to other players pretty well. I think that alone is a big deterrent for most players, that get a too honest evaluation of their skill thrown at them without the player asking for it. It's pretty rude when you think about it socially. You come over to a friend to play some board game or something, and afterwards they tell you that you are in the bottom 20% of all players! I'm sure not encouraged to play with that friend again...
Splitting up the 5 leagues into 15 would do little to change that.
I think what should be done, is that the default PvP game mode should be "unranked", in the sense that it won't throw your rank into your face all the time. You can still get achievements for number of wins, and objective achievement independent of other players, such as chaining injects, spending quotient, APM, SPM, EAPM, average unspent, units built, nailing BOs and that kind of statistics. It'll still track your MMR to give you even games, but that's it.
Then there should be some pretty obscure setting that allows you to see your MMR somewhere, and why not your total ranking or quantile of the active players on the server, but it should be a very subtly displayed number somewhere, not rubbed into your face as it is now. People that care about ranks don't need more than a number in the corner, and people that don't care about ranks aren't insulted as blatantly by the game.
It's just basic social skills in the end... If you want new people to continue playing a game, don't tell them that they are crap unless they ask for an evaluation.
|
Yep, Starcraft Ladder is lagging behind as usual. Blizzard has grown so large that teams no longer talk to each other.
|
It would be nice if players have an option they can check or uncheck in the menu that acts as a switch between the current ranking system and a pure number ladder. Make it a choice for the player.
|
I would agree on some part, but not so much on the comparison with chess. It is true that both have similarities : they are strategy games and the ranking is based on an elo system. But the community is really different and that makes chess more viable for casual/low competitive players. Let me explain myself.
For a low ranked competitive chess player, between 1500 and 2000 elo, small achievement come with raw numbers : I reach another hundred, or I'm above 1750 or this is the best elo I've ever had... but if you're 1600, you still know you're pretty bad. The thing is the mass of the players are around that sort of ranking so you know you're bad, it doesn't matter. In my opinion, the reason behind this is that there are A LOT of competition available for all levels. Leagues for instance. In france you have divisions like in football (soccer) and you play against team roughly of the same caliber. I know that in SC2 there are team leagues. But it seems like no one cares about it. Yes some players play, but if you're not diamond at least, there is no league for you. And more important, no one talks about it. If you're on a team, you just win your team league and got promoted or even better win the prime division, well good for you but no one cares. To my mind a consistent system of league and coverage of those leagues would help. Who would do it ? well TL could start paying a few dollars for posts... To continue the comparison with chess, there is another big difference : TOURNAMENTS. In chess you would play a sunday tournament where you play all 7 or 9 games (fast games i.e. less than 20 min per person) or a all weekend tournament with longer games. With a Swiss system (french name of it don't know if it's the english one also) you would be paired with opponents that have the same number of wins. That way would don't feel bad for loosing first round. I understant that in SC2, it's more complicated because not time limited. But if you want competitive low level players (and that's actually what makes the community live) you have to find something like this. I played some tournaments, I was stressed and lost the first round against lesser players. Maybe after a round or two, I would have gotten calmer and played better. That's what people want.
As for individual ladder, the problem is different. I would love a division system that is only partially based on mmr, where to get promoted you need to finish the season at the top of the division, let say top ten. The ten at the bottom get demoted, that's the game, that's how every sport works and it never made someone quit playing basketball or football. People don't play because they are afraid to be demoted, with this system if they don't play they will be. much better.
With more ladder seasons this could be possible (one a month for instance). MMR could still place you for the first league, with 25 games instead of 5 (that the number blizz claim they need to be sure of you mmr). And an overall mmr, hidden for those who want to compare with others.
Now if you talk about top 200 players, I don't care. They're good, good for them. Like in chess they're on another planet, with their competitions and all. I wouldn't worry about that. This story about the 200 not being the actual 200 is understandable but that's not what make a community live. If you're the best, but stuck in master because of this system, you would still qualify for WCS. That's what matters, no ?
|
Nice post. I like reading your stuff. Always good to hear a pro level players thoughts well explained.
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.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
Just remove this league/division shit and make one big ladder for all server. Back in WC3 days we had one big ladder with top1000 players showed at blizzard site. If you were lower you were able to see your place in your profile. Everybody was fine about it and this system forced players to play a lot, because it was totally viable to get into this top1000 and when you got there you felt yourself liekabause since you were able to see yourself at blizzard site and show it to the others (meanwhile other players that already got there were forced to play if they wanted to keep their place). Also, if you wanted to become a progamer you wanted to get to top100 (second page of a ladder site) and if you got to top50 (first page) you were considering yourself alsmost progamer level. It was very strict and tough ladder system, but it worked - best were on a top (really best, not some kid that picked protoss and plays 1 build), good were in a middle, others were others.
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.
|
There's no sense of community in the current ladder system. The only ladder that matters is GM, because there is only one GM ladder. It's constant across the season and filled with active players.
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).
|
Sounds good for the most part, but I don't think ladder rating is a huge deterant for new players. GM seems mostly just to be a pro playground. I think most people don't see it as legitimate, especially casual players, but the pro's themselves don't seem to care much about ladder.
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?
|
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?
|
United Kingdom35819 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.
|
Agree with you totally. And also with sd_andeh, the bonus pool shouldn't be available on GM imo.
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 ^-^
|
Regarding the thoughts on the ladder, I wonder if the reason that they haven't added them yet is because they are actually still considering the format that they should be in. As mentioned, 25 for hearthstone, 50 for heroes. So clearly this is something blizz have evolved, perhaps from the feedback on the sc2 ladders.
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.
|
Please blizzard dont take into consideration this topic of a whiny terran with no idea because we all already know that majority doesnt care about ladder, doesnt want to play ladder, or even be "provided {with} enough milestones for players" to focus on ladder. 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
|
8716 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.
|
On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
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.
|
8716 Posts
edit: NM I'm not gonna keep posting about this stuff. LotV isn't gonna be amazing but it's gonna be good enough and the chance of anything changing based on some blog comments is just about zero.
|
On May 29 2015 02:26 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
NIce, another great qxc blog! Thanks for your thoughts and I wholeheartedly agree with what you've shared.
|
On May 29 2015 02:45 Bradwan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 02:26 IntoTheheart wrote: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. 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.
|
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 couldn't agree more with this, nice post qxc.
|
Canada10951 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.
|
|
United States12181 Posts
On May 29 2015 02:37 NonY wrote: edit: NM I'm not gonna keep posting about this stuff. LotV isn't gonna be amazing but it's gonna be good enough and the chance of anything changing based on some blog comments is just about zero.
You're wrong about that Tyler. =)
I don't think qxc is 100% right because a lot of stuff needs to be reviewed within the existing framework. Changing stuff like Grandmaster is difficult because you have to first look at how the division structure is communicated, then you have to think of what to do when someone hops into GM then out then back in, what does that new system look like, and so on. It's one thing to say it needs to change or it doesn't work, but proposing the solutions/replacements is the really challenging part. I do think that GM needs to change but I'm still drafting possibilities as to how that would work. It's easy to see how GM came about in its current iteration: you don't have to introduce any new variables or elements, everyone is already familiar with how the bonus pool operates by the time they reach GM, keeping a fairly static top 200 provides a solid balance between prestige and recognition, and so on.
|
i wouldnt mind seeing blizzard implement the ideas that QXC suggested, however i dont think people would play this game more just to achieve the rank of Gold5. Most people play games because they're fun, first & foremost. So making this game enjoyable & most importantly approachable, should be the priority. Plenty of posts have been written about ways to improve the SC2 experience, & this article once again ad's more. Sadly it all ad's up to nothing, although i have great expectations for SC3 when it comes out. 2020 cant get here quick enough
|
Even more than incremental competitive ranks, Blizz should really add incremental cosmetic rewards that come almost regardless of performance. Dota, League of Legends, and CSGO (as well as Heroes and Hearthstone) show that this is almost vital towards maintaining a casual player base.
Greater casual playerbase -> greater spectators for the professional scene -> more money into the pro scene -> more incentive for professional viability -> higher level of play at the top level due to increased competition.
That also means you have more sponsors, more exposure, etc.
But at the end of the day, Blizzard doesn't give a shit, which is why I stopped playing Starcraft after playing since 1998. Consider me a statistic.
|
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.
This is where I think Archon mode will really shine. And huge props to blizzard for implementing it. Its an AMAZING mode for newer players, and allows you to play with your friends in a competetive setting (compared to 2v2, where its not balanced) Its a place where i can play with a newish friend, and use my GM skills to still have a huge advantage over my opponent - We can decide how much I will let my friend take over, If hes very new he can just control the base defence, if hes better you split up the tasks more evenly. Compare that to 2v2 where a new player will make it impossible to win.
Archon mode is the one thing that has a chance at making sc2 accessible to new players, tweaking the ladder wont change much.
|
On May 28 2015 03:15 RenSC2 wrote:
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.
While this would be pretty cool you would have to scale this way up to even really do this. Starcraft just isn't large enough to justify breaking down ladder rankings to that small of an area. Not to mention, could you image how much it would cost to implement this and how big of a pain in the ass to make sure this thing is a 100% accurate all the time. Its a cool idea, but why would you do that.
|
This is a fantastic idea. I remember they mentioned this on The Late Game, and I at first I thought it would take the "HOLY SHIT I FINALLY FUCKING DID IT OUT OH MUR GURRRRRD!!!!" and it will but that can also be a good thing. While frankly I think it is just the inherent skill required to get even half way decent that keeps people off the game, adding divisions could definitely help. I would say that 5 divisions is a little too much for most leagues, I think three would be a better number, but all around this is a great idea. I hate that feeling of just playing for 3 seasons and not being sure where I stand compared to the rest of my league. It is especially worse now because I have gotten players from bronze up to masters as a plat because of he new system. It is kinda ridiculous. So if they fix that then adding divisions would be good.
|
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
In Dota 2 the first "elementary" guide is over 40 pages long. https://purgegamers.true.io/g/dota-2-guide/
Counter-Strike and League of Legends also have immense learning curves. They all have a lot of variety in mechanics, game modes, champions/guns, locations, etc.
You know the reason people put up with learning it all? Because it's FUN to learn! You also get things in between every time you learn something because of cosmetics and other things, which are purely additional to the benefit of learning about the game. Instead of saying that you can't learn StarCraft 2 because it's too much to learn, Blizzard needs to just make the stuff more fun to learn (like Valve and Riot have).
I hate people using that excuse. "Oh, don't worry. People don't like our game because it's so hard, deep, and complex! There's so much to learn! That's why people play easy games like LoL! :D"
Nah go fuck yourselves and face reality. StarCraft isn't harder or more demanding to learn than any other popular competitive game right now.
|
On May 29 2015 05:08 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote: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? Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 02:52 NonY wrote:On May 26 2015 02:08 Hider wrote: With true ladder anxiety, your simply afraid of losing games (typically because your afraid of being demoted/losing points). This issue won't be solved if you just wait a couple of hours untill you gain more "energy", but the core issue can only be truely fixed by consistently working on detaching yourself from your rank and identifying yourself with your skillset. Ok for this I have to be frank I really don't give a shit. This ladder anxiety thing is a vocal minority in an echo chamber that have amplified the problem to seem way bigger than it is. You're talking about people behaving irrationally while knowing that they're behaving irrationally. You want to modify a whole system, to the detriment of healthy and happy and normal people, to accommodate a small group of people with mental issues. That's just not the way things ought to work. Those people need to work out their issues themselves, not get our whole environment changed to help them. lol
-You're saying that the majority of people who aren't GM/progamers which includes a good part of masters, all of diamond and everyone below are not terrible compared to them? lol. For the same reasons why we don't need people doing experiments on why bee stings hurt...it's obvious.
-Ladder anxiety is definitely widespread and it's completely natural for people to feel nervous in a competitive game. Everyone feels it, has felt it, will never stop feeling, or will feel it again one day. Very few of us are in the psychological category of someone like Flash or Jaedong for example that have a well developed professional mindset to completely override natural nerves.
|
On May 29 2015 16:02 gyrus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 05:08 Barrin wrote:On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote: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 26 2015 02:52 NonY wrote:On May 26 2015 02:08 Hider wrote: With true ladder anxiety, your simply afraid of losing games (typically because your afraid of being demoted/losing points). This issue won't be solved if you just wait a couple of hours untill you gain more "energy", but the core issue can only be truely fixed by consistently working on detaching yourself from your rank and identifying yourself with your skillset. Ok for this I have to be frank I really don't give a shit. This ladder anxiety thing is a vocal minority in an echo chamber that have amplified the problem to seem way bigger than it is. You're talking about people behaving irrationally while knowing that they're behaving irrationally. You want to modify a whole system, to the detriment of healthy and happy and normal people, to accommodate a small group of people with mental issues. That's just not the way things ought to work. Those people need to work out their issues themselves, not get our whole environment changed to help them. lol -You're saying that the majority of people who aren't GM/progamers which includes a good part of masters, all of diamond and everyone below are not terrible compared to them? lol. For the same reasons why we don't need people doing experiments on why bee stings hurt...it's obvious. -Ladder anxiety is definitely widespread and it's completely natural for people to feel nervous in a competitive game. Everyone feels it, has felt it, will never stop feeling, or will feel it again one day. Very few of us are in the psychological category of someone like Flash or Jaedong for example that have a well developed professional mindset to completely override natural nerves. As I understood it, he commented on Nony first complaining about the "wanna-be Freuds" that claim to know what people like/don't like while playing games, only to do it himself in the same post.
Oh, and since it seems to be mandatory in this conversation: lol.
|
On May 29 2015 15:16 Roxas_ 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
In Dota 2 the first "elementary" guide is over 40 pages long. https://purgegamers.true.io/g/dota-2-guide/Counter-Strike and League of Legends also have immense learning curves. They all have a lot of variety in mechanics, game modes, champions/guns, locations, etc. You know the reason people put up with learning it all? Because it's FUN to learn! You also get things in between every time you learn something because of cosmetics and other things, which are purely additional to the benefit of learning about the game. Instead of saying that you can't learn StarCraft 2 because it's too much to learn, Blizzard needs to just make the stuff more fun to learn (like Valve and Riot have). I hate people using that excuse. "Oh, don't worry. People don't like our game because it's so hard, deep, and complex! There's so much to learn! That's why people play easy games like LoL! :D" Nah go fuck yourselves and face reality. StarCraft isn't harder or more demanding to learn than any other popular competitive game right now.
After trying to play a MOBA for the very first time a few weeks back, I definitely agree with you. The entry barrier felt as high (maybe even higher) to start playing DOTA2 than SC2. Just the sheer amount of stuff you have to know, the complexity of the game (how the XP works, how the money works, how the different Heroes work, etc, so many things to know !)
However - and this has been said a few times already - I think that what really drives casuals away is a combination of several things: the fact that 1v1 ranking is made so freaking important, the fact that you can't hide it, and the fact that SC2 is a 1v1 game. I have loads of casuals friends who play CS:GO, LoL or Dota2 and who are terrible at it. You know what they say when I ask them why their rank is so low ? "My teammates are always shitty/retarded." I get that answer like 95% of the time. In sc2 you don't have that easy way out. You have to face the fact that you're terrible. And not only does the game tell you that you suck, you have no excuses about it and the game also tells it to all your friends. No wonder no one (except the tryhards) wants to stick around !
So yeah, SC2 might not be the hardest game or the more complex one, but I believe it puts more social or psychological pressure on the players since it's 1v1 rather than a teamgame. And the casuals don't want pressure, quite the opposite: they just want to chill with their friends !
|
On May 29 2015 18:02 LoneYoShi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 15:16 Roxas_ 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
In Dota 2 the first "elementary" guide is over 40 pages long. https://purgegamers.true.io/g/dota-2-guide/Counter-Strike and League of Legends also have immense learning curves. They all have a lot of variety in mechanics, game modes, champions/guns, locations, etc. You know the reason people put up with learning it all? Because it's FUN to learn! You also get things in between every time you learn something because of cosmetics and other things, which are purely additional to the benefit of learning about the game. Instead of saying that you can't learn StarCraft 2 because it's too much to learn, Blizzard needs to just make the stuff more fun to learn (like Valve and Riot have). I hate people using that excuse. "Oh, don't worry. People don't like our game because it's so hard, deep, and complex! There's so much to learn! That's why people play easy games like LoL! :D" Nah go fuck yourselves and face reality. StarCraft isn't harder or more demanding to learn than any other popular competitive game right now. After trying to play a MOBA for the very first time a few weeks back, I definitely agree with you. The entry barrier felt as high (maybe even higher) to start playing DOTA2 than SC2. Just the sheer amount of stuff you have to know, the complexity of the game (how the XP works, how the money works, how the different Heroes work, etc, so many things to know !) However - and this has been said a few times already - I think that what really drives casuals away is a combination of several things: the fact that 1v1 ranking is made so freaking important, the fact that you can't hide it, and the fact that SC2 is a 1v1 game. I have loads of casuals friends who play CS:GO, LoL or Dota2 and who are terrible at it. You know what they say when I ask them why their rank is so low ? "My teammates are always shitty/retarded." I get that answer like 95% of the time. In sc2 you don't have that easy way out. You have to face the fact that you're terrible. And not only does the game tell you that you suck, you have no excuses about it and the game also tells it to all your friends. No wonder no one (except the tryhards) wants to stick around ! So yeah, SC2 might not be the hardest game or the more complex one, but I believe it puts more social or psychological pressure on the players since it's 1v1 rather than a teamgame. And the casuals don't want pressure, quite the opposite: they just want to chill with their friends ! Agree. It also explains why casual people more often prefer to play 2on2, 3on3 or 4on4 in sc2.
|
Hearthstone ranking system for SC2 would make a lot of sense now that I think of it... why not???
Edit: though avoiding GM rank playing vs rank 20 at the start of a season would have to been done better
|
|
On May 29 2015 23:48 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 16:21 Cascade wrote:On May 29 2015 16:02 gyrus wrote:On May 29 2015 05:08 Barrin wrote:On May 29 2015 00:42 NonY wrote: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 26 2015 02:52 NonY wrote:On May 26 2015 02:08 Hider wrote: With true ladder anxiety, your simply afraid of losing games (typically because your afraid of being demoted/losing points). This issue won't be solved if you just wait a couple of hours untill you gain more "energy", but the core issue can only be truely fixed by consistently working on detaching yourself from your rank and identifying yourself with your skillset. Ok for this I have to be frank I really don't give a shit. This ladder anxiety thing is a vocal minority in an echo chamber that have amplified the problem to seem way bigger than it is. You're talking about people behaving irrationally while knowing that they're behaving irrationally. You want to modify a whole system, to the detriment of healthy and happy and normal people, to accommodate a small group of people with mental issues. That's just not the way things ought to work. Those people need to work out their issues themselves, not get our whole environment changed to help them. lol -You're saying that the majority of people who aren't GM/progamers which includes a good part of masters, all of diamond and everyone below are not terrible compared to them? lol. For the same reasons why we don't need people doing experiments on why bee stings hurt...it's obvious. -Ladder anxiety is definitely widespread and it's completely natural for people to feel nervous in a competitive game. Everyone feels it, has felt it, will never stop feeling, or will feel it again one day. Very few of us are in the psychological category of someone like Flash or Jaedong for example that have a well developed professional mindset to completely override natural nerves. As I understood it, he commented on Nony first complaining about the "wanna-be Freuds" that claim to know what people like/don't like while playing games, only to do it himself in the same post. Oh, and since it seems to be mandatory in this conversation: lol. Not really sure who you guys are talking about; I didn't say anything but "lol". But I was mostly referring to the hypocrisy (projection imo, lol) of him doing it himself (without any proof too). Shrug. Perhaps proof is not necessary. That's what I said you referred to.
|
On May 29 2015 18:02 LoneYoShi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2015 15:16 Roxas_ 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
In Dota 2 the first "elementary" guide is over 40 pages long. https://purgegamers.true.io/g/dota-2-guide/Counter-Strike and League of Legends also have immense learning curves. They all have a lot of variety in mechanics, game modes, champions/guns, locations, etc. You know the reason people put up with learning it all? Because it's FUN to learn! You also get things in between every time you learn something because of cosmetics and other things, which are purely additional to the benefit of learning about the game. Instead of saying that you can't learn StarCraft 2 because it's too much to learn, Blizzard needs to just make the stuff more fun to learn (like Valve and Riot have). I hate people using that excuse. "Oh, don't worry. People don't like our game because it's so hard, deep, and complex! There's so much to learn! That's why people play easy games like LoL! :D" Nah go fuck yourselves and face reality. StarCraft isn't harder or more demanding to learn than any other popular competitive game right now. After trying to play a MOBA for the very first time a few weeks back, I definitely agree with you. The entry barrier felt as high (maybe even higher) to start playing DOTA2 than SC2. Just the sheer amount of stuff you have to know, the complexity of the game (how the XP works, how the money works, how the different Heroes work, etc, so many things to know !) However - and this has been said a few times already - I think that what really drives casuals away is a combination of several things: the fact that 1v1 ranking is made so freaking important, the fact that you can't hide it, and the fact that SC2 is a 1v1 game. I have loads of casuals friends who play CS:GO, LoL or Dota2 and who are terrible at it. You know what they say when I ask them why their rank is so low ? "My teammates are always shitty/retarded." I get that answer like 95% of the time. In sc2 you don't have that easy way out. You have to face the fact that you're terrible. And not only does the game tell you that you suck, you have no excuses about it and the game also tells it to all your friends. No wonder no one (except the tryhards) wants to stick around ! So yeah, SC2 might not be the hardest game or the more complex one, but I believe it puts more social or psychological pressure on the players since it's 1v1 rather than a teamgame. And the casuals don't want pressure, quite the opposite: they just want to chill with their friends !
A good RTS by definition is hard to really understand, tricks and tips must be an important part. However i dont understand what you mean by social pressure(if some pple have troubles to be diamond because they consider it too low, that's more for a psy to intervene^^). I think you have more pressure in teamgames, if you play bad, you're killing 4 others players (cf. current Heroes gameplay). The 1v1 vs team argument depends completely on how much you will take the game "seriously". I dont give damn if i lose Dont forget that to be a average sc2 player you need 200 epm, a game can last for 3h30^^ and u can ragequit in 3m45. CS, dota, lol dont have this mechanic which put a CONSTANT pressure on the player. Sometimes i have fun with protoss and after executing 20 dt into blink i feel exhausted. The 2 major issues that can bother casual players are the lack of any kind of social tool on B.NET(hard to learn) and the gui design too oriented around blizzard bad ladder which cannot atm provide an extertaining experience.
|
Players are discouraged by being in a lower league, yeah, but not cuz they don't get a higher number of incremental ranks. It's cuz they're not learning the game properly. They misunderstand the crux of the game (ie. the way greed loses to cheese but well defended cheese beats cheese and the way the maps affect this.)
Then besides learning the "crux" you must know stuff about how the match ups work like how zerg needs more bases than Terran,No one is teaching this essential stuff so players who learn wrongly get stuck.
Practice mode should include AI's that develop these essential thought patterns and stuff like timing windows. The essential way to make decisions must be more accessible for newer players to want to stick around and learn. Also learning the armour vs light and DPS is important too. It really proves to be a game for niche psychographical groups.
Starcraft is just a waste of time though.
|
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.
|
On May 30 2015 04:13 Textual wrote: qxc tried to analyze decisions about the ladder based on studies about player retention.
You do realise he just made that part up? "It is likely that studies have shown that" = "I believe that". There is nothing empirical about that.
I'll give qxc the benefit of the doubt and think that he wrote it as a joke, not because he actually thought it was a valid argument leaning more strength, or worse, consciously trying to mislead people. But any way that may be, a lot of people seem to believe that it must be true because "it is likely that studies have shown"...
I should mention that I do share his belief. But he shouldn't be selling his belief as if it is the result of an actual experiment.
|
I'd just like to say on this topic that I am a terrible player and one of my main problems with the ladder is that i don't know where i stand. I don't need less info to encourage me to play. I was terrible at bw too, but loved iccup. All I want from a ladder is to know where I stand (because I want to see improvement when i actually have time to practice) and to constantly play players as close to my skill level as possible.
Basically, give me my raw mmr number and get rid of that "fix" that makes me play against people nowhere close to my skill (above and below) actually fairly often. Oh, and an actual antihack system^^
|
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!
|
<3 GM should be a cut throat league !
|
Thanks for your time to write this. It's well written with sound arguments, and there's not much left to do, but nod and hope the fellows at blizz will take notice and have the resources to proceed with changes.
~UB
|
|
|
|