EPTSC1 had zero competition until now, but the competition might get more fierce soon.
[Poll] MBS implementation (or not) - Page 23
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
SC1 had zero competition until now, but the competition might get more fierce soon. | ||
|
ocoini
648 Posts
 | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 20 2007 16:26 IntoTheWow wrote: Are you kidding me? Going with the newer generation is going safe. Not the other way around. You could take AoE3, skin units to bw, add mroe blur, more blend, make graphic requirements high, put some nice photoshopped pics everywhere, call it "StarCraft II" and every average gamer would buy it. On the other hand, for true gamers to buy it, you need to actually make a good game. But yeah, a big % of TL's regulars are going to buy it whether its a competitive game or not. I meant play it safe with the competitive community. There will be a decent existing pro-scene right out of the gate, if you just keep it exactly like BW. Going the other way is the riskier move for E-Sports, but may or may not pay off in the end depending on how talented Blizzard is at upping the skill level requirements. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On October 22 2007 20:59 Kennigit wrote: I agree with everyone on every matter You suck at debating. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32049 Posts
On October 20 2007 20:14 Gandalf wrote: I'm pretty sure almost everyone whos played SC for a significant amount of time will buy SC2 even if it turns out to be really crap. When it comes to the "veterans" its not a question of purchasing it, but of it having enough substance to provide longevity and enough depth to succeed as a sport. Exactly. Personally, I don't care much for what I see right now and I keep telling myself that I'll let my friend buy it and I'll play it there just to see if it sucks as much as I think it will. But really, I know I'll be one of the first suckers to buy it =[ | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
On October 20 2007 16:26 IntoTheWow wrote: Are you kidding me? Going with the newer generation is going safe. Not the other way around. You could take AoE3, skin units to bw, add mroe blur, more blend, make graphic requirements high, put some nice photoshopped pics everywhere, call it "StarCraft II" and every average gamer would buy it. On the other hand, for true gamers to buy it, you need to actually make a good game. But yeah, a big % of TL's regulars are going to buy it whether its a competitive game or not. Most people buy a game and find out if it's good or bad afterwards, from their own experience, especially when it comes to hot titles such as these. A similar case was CS:S. I tested the beta and was a bit sceptical, but thought: "I'll give it the benefit of a doubt." Perhaps it would still get popular or replace, or tweaked later on.. In the end it just sort of sucked, kind of like a date with an only moderately attractive girl who isn't very talkative.. Also, there may not even be a demo out beforehand, and if there was, multiplayer is one of the major reasons people buy games today, and I'll doubt it'd have full multiplayer functionality. (Singleplayer games get ripped off big time in comparison.) Companies today do not want revenues from front-heavy productions like games one to five years from now, but rather in the first 3-6 months. That's usually when they sell the bulk, and that's where they usually where they themselves deem it a success or failure. This question, while still at heart of the game, has now become too tiresome for people to debate seriously - which is a shame since I came up with a solution myself that I thought got the best of all worlds without making any compromises. Another problem is also the elitist attitue here (not gonna argue wether it's right or wonrg, just the attitude now) which often clouds the main function of what an interface is and what it's supposed to achieve! Let me give you some examples: Here the hardcore fans may have the approach that there must be a clear distinction between a good and a bad player. All well there but continuing down that line; It shouldn't be too easy! Uhm, okay? What does this mean now? That the interface itself should be difficult or cumbersome? In what way? Hard to execute from a physical perspective, in the sense that you have to break your fingers trying to nail awkward key combinations or just too many of them for no real reason? Even further down the line I've seem suggestions where you'd actually be punished!??! for utilizing MBS (which would be in the game then of course) in the sense that it wouldn't work very well, inaccurate or drain even more resources etc etc. Now this doesn't just encroach on the boarder of retardoland, this is like pioneering way into idiotopia, beyond reason. 1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use. and somewhere down the line we have.. 3) Improve gameplay, not hamper it (here discussion can take place, and there may be nuances, but not countering 1 or 2.) Much longer than intended first, just like my very own MBS-thread with imo one of the better solutions yet, only it was locked by an admin who just like many others was tired with this topic and instead locked it.. Well your loss!.. maybe  | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On October 23 2007 01:40 Luhh wrote: 1) An interface should be intuitive. 2) Easy to use. Yes to number 1, No to number 2. The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard? Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off. The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill. Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former. | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
On October 23 2007 02:22 Fen wrote: Yes to number 1, No to number 2. The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard? Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off. The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill. Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former. With easy to use, I didn't mean the easiest UI possible, since that wouldn't be capable of handling all the actions and orders and hotkeys you'd like to use. What I meant by was an easy was an easy (or the easiest possible) way to achieve the same result through the interface without sacrificing functionality. Complexity for the sake of complexity is generally a big no-no. If the interface is the only difference between a good and a bad player, then it's a rather poor game, no? Okay, I admit I'm playing the devils advocate here a bit, but a better interface is needed, and it won't be the thing that makes or breaks this game. My five cents. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 23 2007 02:22 Fen wrote: Yes to number 1, No to number 2. The easiest interface in the world would be one with 2 buttons. Obviously that is not going to be fun. Why? Because when you play a game, you want to be challenged enough so its an accomplishment when you do something hard, but is not too hard so that you become frustrated. This is the simple problem with the noobification argument. Where do you draw the line on too hard? Starcraft vets are very good at accomplishing the harder feats in starcraft, and are rewarded for doing so. They see that if the game becomes easier/noobified, there will be the loss of that acomplishment and satisfaction. One of the biggest problems I think with Warcraft 3 was simply, the lack of being able to do something crazy hard. Think back to a time when youve performed something that you wouldnt have usually been able to do (maybe beaten a certain song in Guitar hero or something), Its that satisfaction that starcraft players get when they attempt something hard and pull it off. The less skilled starcraft players draw the line much lower. They are in a position where the acomplishment feeling comes at a much lower skill level than the vets. Instead of 'accurately cloning 6 HT's to storm a group.' their acomplishment will be more around the 'built an army of 60 carriers'. To a player who plays at the lower level, they find the tasks of the game too hard and therefore frustrating, which is why they want to remove them from the game. Fastest map and BGH are popular because they noobify the game and lower the skill level required. This means that their achievement goals of building 60 carriers or whatever are attainable without needing the skill that is required by normal starcraft. Vets dont play this mode because they are not challenged by it, and achieving 60 carriers is not a goal that they see is an achievement of skill. Ultimatly blizzard will have to make a decision. However I think its easier to make a hard game and then let the community mod it to make it easier rather than to make an easy game and the have to rely on the community to make it competative. People just arent going to bother with the latter, while we can garrentee they will with the former. Agree on all your points except the part about Warcraft 3. If you've ever played War3 at a higher level, you would realize how amazing some of the plays really are. There are plenty of "WTFHAX" moments in many games with two players of the top level, but most are not immediately obvious without a deep understanding of the game (hence why War3 is a poor spectator sport). I have often sat in amazement just while watching Grubby's replays while he was in his prime. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
Orangedude, you're not the most shitty poster on this issue, and actually you even try to put sense in some of your posts. That's why i will try my best not to flame. If you've ever played SC at a higher level, you would realize that you currently know nothing. I mean, sorry to be mean, but in the games against tasteless you loose to one fucking zealot. The way you handle each one of his zealot rushes makes me think you have NO idea about even basic micro in SC. I remember one game (when you start at 3, don't really remember the map), where you let your probes spaced and idle when the first zlot comes to them, and you actually loose half of them this way. I mean, the peons management (to save them for ex) is the VERY BASIS of micro management in the game. Don't tell me you know how to micro but don't manage to do it, it's obvious you don't even try to move them. Now just try to answer the next question. I don't need a reply presenting how bad no-MBS would be for SC2 from a politico economico social Blizzard point of view. I just need you answer the following : With a so poor understanding of SC micro, since obviously the fundamentals are not clearly understood, how would you be able to judge the absolute necessity of keeping the balance macro/micro as it is ? I mean, if you don't even have an idea of what micro is in the game ? How would you be able to understand what MBS really involves, if you don't even know what's the balance i'm talking about ? I agree that people with poor understanding of WC3 should stop claiming things, myself included. But do you think that, even if i am strongly against MBS and 'improvments' to make the game easy, I will spend my days and nights on War4 forums trying to convince you that it's bad. I mean, common, i will surely post my views on the question, then leave all of you alone (to fuck up the things up and eagerly wait for SC3). So, in order to be clear : you have no idea why it would be so dangerous (or maybe you have a little idea now, after reading the countless interesting posts on the matter). The main reason you mentioned is not totally idiot, but for sure not worth it. If you are satisfied with War3, stick to it and wait your turn. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
If you think I don't know what micro is, how do you think I was able to play War3 at a decently high level? That game is like 80% micro. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
 I say that, in that game, obviously you had no idea what the very basic micro should be in this situation. That's totally different. The fact that you didn't play for months changes nothing here actually, it's just a lack of understanding thus a lack of proper reaction. If you don't know what to do there, i suppose there're plenty of other things you don't know about SC. PS: i'm not speaking about your 'level' here. The fact you play WC3 pretty good could lead you to get a 'low decent' level in SC, keeping however a very poor sense of the game. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
After I play a bit more iCCup (after my midterms are over), you'll see that I'm a much better player, and I'll be rising up the ranks there. In fact, ask me any detailed SC related question (preferably about Protoss) and I can answer you right here and now. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
It could happen (yes, yes, in some cases it happens!) that you still prefer W3 as a whole. If so, you have to understand some SC players don't want to walk in the same 80% micro shitty direction. So, as i already said, pass your turn on this one and come back for W4. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
I'm not arguing for MBS to make the game easier for myself, so you must be misunderstanding my points. I'm not even suggesting that they must add it in the game, but only that we should wait for beta and fully test it before deciding. This probably won't change no matter how good I get at SC. I don't even know why I have to defend myself/correct your opinions about me when you can just point out the flaws in my arguments if you think I'm wrong. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
Despite the fact your point against it is perfectly valid in my eyes, it's absolutely not worth the change. It's necessary to mention the probable side effects, as you did, but it does not balance the loss. No game should even thinks about canceling one of its good components to hit a (slightly) more large number of customers. I don't know why you think we should trade it, except if you care more about Blizzard finances than about the greatness of the game. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
| ||
