|
On May 06 2008 15:36 InterWill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 13:41 yare wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 14:32 lololol wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented none. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? You've only addressed the fact that mechanics are important in Starcraft. It's true that as the speed increases, mechanics becomes more difficult. However, the amount of strategy in the game remains similar at both normal and fastest speeds! This is why Dan is totally wrong. He incorrectly assumes that the actual strategical depth of the game is decreased because the player doesn't have enough time to think (i.e. speed chess).
No, there is in fact plenty of time to think and adapt to your opponent, because you don't come out with strategies on the fly. You enter the match prepared, armed with BO's, timings, counters, etc (much like any general), from info gained from replays, articles, past experience and so on.
Dan wants to play a game like Sins of a Solar Empire or a TBS, not Starcraft. But instead of seeing where the fault lies and stating that his own preferences are at issue here, he goes on to write a whiny article claiming that the game has NO strategy in it and that everyone else is playing the game wrong. This is why his article is complete garbage, unprofessional and totally deserves this shit storm from SC players.
It's true that proportionally, mechanics become more important as speed increases, but that's part of what made SC so successful as an R-T-S and an eSport. This is what made SC so intense and exciting to play. This only increases the skill requirements overall and expanded the skill range, especially at the pro level.
Maybe if you read our arguments properly, you would've been able to figure all of this out without me having to explain it again.
I do however, share your concerns about making the new player feel comfortable in the game, so I really do hope they end up finding a balance in the UI somewhere that allows for both user-friendliness and intense requirements for the absolute best. It feels like you're trying to inject MBS into this discussion into again. I really don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, but I do think that some form of improved system will be necessary in SC2.
|
On May 06 2008 17:04 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 15:36 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 13:41 yare wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. On May 06 2008 14:32 lololol wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented none. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? You've only addressed the fact that mechanics are important in Starcraft. It's true that as the speed increases, mechanics becomes more difficult. However, the amount of strategy in the game remains similar at both normal and fastest speeds! However, Dan incorrectly assumes the actual strategical depth of the game is decreased because the player doesn't have enough time to think (i.e. speed chess). No, there is in fact plenty of time to think and adapt to your opponent, again because you don't come out with strategies on the fly. You enter the match prepared, armed with BO's, timings, counters, etc (much like any general), from info gained from replays, articles, past experience and so on. Dan wants to play a game like Sins of a Solar Empire or a TBS, not Starcraft. But instead of seeing where the fault lies and stating that his own preferences are at issue here, he goes on to write a whiny article claiming that the game has NO strategy in it and that everyone else is playing the game wrong. This is why his article is complete garbage, unprofessional and totally deserves this shit storm from SC players. It's true that proportionally, mechanics become more important as speed increases, but that's part of what made SC so successful as an R-T-S and an eSport. This is what made SC so intense and exciting to play. This only increases the skill requirements overall and expanded the skill range, especially at the pro level. Maybe if you read our arguments properly, you would've been able to figure all of this out without me having to explain it again. I do however, share your concerns about making the new player feel comfortable in the game, so I really do hope they end up finding a balance in the UI somewhere that allows for both user-friendliness and intense requirements for the absolute best. It feels like you're trying to inject MBS into this discussion into again. I really don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, but I do think that some form of improved system will be necessary in SC2.
Case closed GG noRE
|
On May 06 2008 16:17 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 15:36 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 13:41 yare wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. On May 06 2008 14:32 lololol wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented none. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? Like it has been said before. This game is not ONLY about strategy. It's about strategy AND physical hand dexterity. Any new player, regardless of skill level, will and should need both to win against equally skilled players. RTS = Real Time Strategy. Speed is what differ this genre from TBS = Turn Based Strategy (aka. chess). Anyways speed is only meaningful relative to your opponent - there is no exception to this. If you're so slow to the point that you take 10min to build 4 zerglings it won't matter against an enemy who is just as slow and takes 10min to build 1 zealot, and you'll still need the same ratio of speed/strategy at any level. So if you're a new player who just feels like the speed is overwhelming and wanted to use more strategy instead of speed then you're just playing the wrong game. Speed SHOULD matter at ANY skill level. I never claimed StarCraft to be about only strategy. I never claimed Starcraft not to be about both strategy and physical hand dexterity. I am aware that the R and T in RTS stand for Real Time. I do not agree with your notion that what differs TBS from RTS is speed. In TBS games your actions are divided in discreet turns, while your actions are taking place in continuous time in RTS games. The speed at which you are forced to act is independent on whether the game is an RTS or an TBS, but rather on how fast the game is paced (be it by the game speed in an RTS or the time you have to make a turn in a TBS). I also disagree with your opinion that speed only is meaningful relative to your opponent, without exception. For players playing at speeds exceeding the threshold of what they're capable of, the speed itself will affect their game play in such a way that they might feel that they cannot muster the mental and physical agility to even play the game. I disagree with your opinion that players who feel overwhelmed by the speed should simply try to find a different game - I believe that Blizzard instead should try to cater to these people (not at the expense of eSport potential though) and try to make a great game more accessible for more players.
On May 06 2008 17:04 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 15:36 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 13:41 yare wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. I believe the actual posts proving your point are your own. You ignore 95% of the posts that use logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner, and instead focus on the more ill-tempered bandwagon style of posts. You then make generalized statements on how negative all of this thread is by focusing on this one person's post. My suggestion is read the more developed arguments, think about whether you can make a competent counter argument, and then make it. Otherwise, do like the rest of the world and ignore these few posts. The consequence is you are not participating in the discussion, but adding to that 5% of the posts we get to ignore. While I know that you made up the 95% - 5%-figures on the spot - I must point out that this is an exaggeration which heavily distorts the validity of your post.95-5 is equivalent 19-1, meaning that I should be able to find only one ill-tempered bandwagon style of post per page, with the rest of the posts using logical statements to develop arguments in a productive manner. This thread begins as a flamefest that then somehow evolves into a more mature discussion. My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks. Having stated that, I would like to address some of Dan's points. What happens to strategy as you increase the game speed? All players have a threshold somewhere, increasing the game speed beyond this threshold makes the game almost unplayable. For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration. In this setting, an inexperienced player will feel that strategy is thrown out the window. She is forced to use all of her mental capacity and dexterity just to stay afloat, to stay alive. This applies regardless of the skill level of her opponent. She will not feel that she can keep up worker production, scouting, expanding, teching and producing units. Regardless of whether she wins the game or not, the end result will be determined by whomever made the least amount of mistakes - not who played best. Now, as her skill with the game improves, she will (hopefully) become more proficient with most aspects of the game. Thus losing less time on each action and over time coming to the point where she doesn't feel that the game is one of constant stress to manage basic things like unit production and base management. This is what her aim is. To reach a calm where she will be able to be so proficient in controlling everything that she will have time for other things - like thinking about what to build to counter what, how best to harass the opponent or when to time her expansions. There are a couple of problems with this. 1) Her dream scenario is a fallacy - if she's playing to win she will never achieve the calm she's looking for. She will always find something more to do and scramble to have time to do it. 2) Strategy on the fly - inexperienced players often overestimate their ability to form strategies on the fly. More often than not, strategies formed on the fly are ill thought up and simply not effective. These are the strategies applied when caught by surprise by an unexpected strategy - most players will indeed need some time to think of a proper counter strategy for such unexpected strategies and some further games to perfect the timing of the counter strategies. However, this approach demands that you think of your game plan over several games and not as one game at a time. Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower. The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game where inexperienced casual players can become proficient enough with the game mechanics, given the game speed, that they feel that they are actually playing a strategic and tactical game - not just fighting to keep life support going. While at the same time assuring that no matter what, playing faster equals playing better. To meet this challenge, Blizzard will be forced to simplify the UI - while introducing macro heavy new mechanics with great risk/reward. Thus making it easier for new players to feel that they're actually playing the game, but harder for those who are playing to win to play perfectly. At present time, sadly their efforts doing the former exceed their efforts doing the latter. On May 06 2008 14:32 lololol wrote:On May 06 2008 13:30 InterWill wrote:On May 06 2008 04:37 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: InterWill is the most retarded person to pretend to be smart.
Quit posting, dickhead. Well played. The sarcasm is truly brutal on this board. I get it, you want to prove my point - that some people will go to great lengths to attack the person rather than their actual arguments - but while your aim is spot on, your choice of vocabulary feels a bit over the top. Well, people can't attack your actual arguments, because you presented none. I hope this isn't too complex for you, I really do. But all good StarCraft players know that not attacking is no option in the long run, right? You've only addressed the fact that mechanics are important in Starcraft. It's true that as the speed increases, mechanics becomes more difficult. However, the amount of strategy in the game remains similar at both normal and fastest speeds! This is why Dan's article is complete garbage and deserves this shit storm from SC players. He incorrectly assumes the actual strategical depth of the game is decreased because the player doesn't have enough time to think (i.e. speed chess). No, there is plenty of time to adapt to your opponent, again because you don't come out with strategies on the fly. You enter the match prepared, armed with BO's, timings, counters, and so on from info gained from replays, articles, past experience and so on. Dan wants to play a game like Sins of a Solar Empire or a TBS, not Starcraft. But instead of seeing where the fault lies and stating that its his own preferences at issue here, he goes on to write an article claim that the game has NO strategy in it and that everyone else is playing the game wrong.It's true that proportionally, mechanics become more important as speed increases, but that's part of what made SC so successful as an R-T-S. This is what made SC so intense and exciting to play. This only increases the skill requirements overall and expanded the skill range, especially at the pro level. Maybe if you read our arguments properly, you would've been able to figure all of this out without me having to explain it again. I do however, share your concerns about making the new player feel comfortable in the game, so I really do hope they end up finding a balance in the UI somewhere that allows for both user-friendliness and intense requirements for the absolute best. It feels like you're trying to inject MBS into this discussion into again. I really don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole, but I do think that some form of improved system will be necessary in SC2. Well, I disagree. While the amount of strategy in the game may remain similar to skilled players such as yourself at both normal and fastest speeds, this is clearly not the case for people like poor Dan!
The aim of his column is to voice his opinion and provoke discussion. Nowhere does he claim that his words are anything other than his opinion or that they should be taken as facts. In fact, he's only using StarCraft as an example in his column - stating that "At high speed, a game ceases to be..." and his comment about Min/maxers using excel is actually a general comment about to what lengths min/maxers generally go (see Elitist Jerks' class discussion forums for examples of such min/maxers). To him, the act of playing the game itself becomes so hard for him as the speed is increased that he cannot find time to even bother with the meta-game (the strategy part he claims to be thrown out the window).
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that StarCraft is a hard game. Further increasing the game speed just adds insult to injury for new players. This is what Dan is trying to get at. Saying that players aren't worthy, or that they should play another game, especially when a new game is under development is an odd reaction.
StarCraft is a great game. It very hard and unforgiving to get into - but a great game nonetheless. With a sequel in the making, shouldn't we listen to voices about why some people have a hard time to get into the game? Shouldn't we strive to make a game that, while being still being highly competitive, we could get our girlfriends to enjoy (not at the expense of eSport potential, mind you)?
On May 06 2008 17:04 teamsolid wrote: Maybe if you read our arguments properly, you would've been able to figure all of this out without me having to explain it again. I see this board is all about making friends.
|
What the hell? You're rationalizing what Dan said into something completely different and you're assuming so many things about him. Did you even read his article? For the very last time, the fact that he can't think fast enough is NOT because of the "fastest speed". It's because HE is unfamiliar with even the most basic of strategy, BOs, timing, counters, etc.
What you wrote there is more like what YOU think about SC/SC2, which I also have many disagreements with. But I guess responding here in detail would be a complete waste of my time, because your attitude just screams elitist (aka, I'm more intelligent than the rest of the community, everyone else is wrong, etc).
|
Like I said, even in chess he would be wrong.
|
Well, I disagree. While the amount of strategy in the game may remain similar to skilled players such as yourself at both normal and fastest speeds, this is clearly not the case for people like poor Dan!
That's because he enters the game with no grasp of StarCraft strategy whatsoever and tries to figure everything out on the fly! No wonder he doesn't have time to think of everything. He should have everything analyzed before the game, and apply appriopriate solutions to his current situations, and improvise only if it's really needed.
And to be frank, he wouldn't be able to figure out any reasonable strategy with time constraint of 'normal' game speed either, unless he's analysis was VERY superficial...
The aim of his column is to voice his opinion and provoke discussion. Nowhere does he claim that his words are anything other than his opinion or that they should be taken as facts. In fact, he's only using StarCraft as an example in his column - stating that "At high speed, a game ceases to be..." and his comment about Min/maxers using excel is actually a general comment about to what lengths min/maxers generally go (see Elitist Jerks' class discussion forums for examples of such min/maxers). To him, the act of playing the game itself becomes so hard for him as the speed is increased that he cannot find time to even bother with the meta-game (the strategy part he claims to be thrown out the window).
If you've actually read his article and responses you'd notice that he never expected any of this. He just wanted PCG forum members to affirm him in his views and help him rationalize his horrible loss vs. LR.
He presented his opinions as facts. If you think otherwise, you're just blind.
"What's worse, though, is wthat when you're playing at that rate, you can go ahead and toss strategy out the window along with the realism. [b]Min/maxers (people who bust out Microsoft Excel to figure out how to build the strongest possible force with the minimum possible time/resource investment) make the real strategic value of many RTS games debatable at normal speeds, but when sped up to two or three or four times as fast, it's not even a questions. It's no longer about out-thinking your opponent and the big picture, it's about reflexes, rehearsal of a super effecient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities-no higher-level thinking required."
Not only is he stating his biased opinions as facts, he's also backing them up with made-up stories like the one with Excel... He's essentially commenting on the degree of strategy involved when one's playing at that rate, which he himself is obviously not capable of...
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that StarCraft is a hard game. Further increasing the game speed just adds insult to injury for new players. This is what Dan is trying to get at. Saying that players aren't worthy, or that they should play another game, especially when a new game is under development is an odd reaction.
It's really a matter of playing an equally skilled player. Who said you have to keep up mechanics-wise in order to manage everything?
StarCraft is a great game. It very hard and unforgiving to get into - but a great game nonetheless. With a sequel in the making, shouldn't we listen to voices about why some people have a hard time to get into the game? Shouldn't we strive to make a game that, while being still being highly competitive, we could get our girlfriends to enjoy (not at the expense of eSport potential, mind you)?
I agree here.
|
On May 06 2008 18:31 teamsolid wrote: What the hell? You're rationalizing what Dan said into something completely different and you're assuming so many things about him. Did you even read his article? For the very last time, the fact that he can't think fast enough is NOT because of the "fastest speed". It's because HE is unfamiliar with even the most basic of strategy, BOs, timing, counters, etc.
What you wrote there is more like what YOU think about SC/SC2, which I also have many disagreements with. But I guess responding here in detail would be a complete waste of my time, because your attitude just screams elitist (aka, I'm more intelligent than the rest of the community, everyone else is wrong, etc). Well, then we agree. With too few games to draw experience from, his difficulty with thinking fast enough is independent of the game speed, thus he would need to play some more games to familiarize himself with the game in order to claim that the speed itself is a hindrance to him. However, my general point about how increasing the game speed makes the mechanics themselves take up almost all the attention of new players still stands - and making it easier for new players could potentially make the beginning of the learning curve less brutal.
It saddens me when you accuse of not reading the arguments properly, rationalizing Dan's words into something completely different, not reading the article and being generally elitist. Granted, English isn't my native language so I'm not always aware if my choice of words is odd.
I have the uttermost respect for this board, which is why I take the time to try to write coherent posts here. Now, just to prove to you that I've read the article -let's find some quotes from it.
...I don't blame Blizzard in the slightest for giving its community what it wants (it's something the company does exceptionally well), but in my opinion, people who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are missing the point. (1)...
... At high speed, a game ceases to be a simulation of a real battlefield.(2)...
... What's worse, though, is wthat when you're playing at that rate, you can go ahead and toss strategy out the window along with the realism.(3) ...
...It's no longer about out-thinking your opponent and the big picture, it's about reflexes, rehearsal of a super effecient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities-no higher-level thinking required.(4)...
Let's examine the bolded parts. (1) he clearly states that he is voicing his opinion. (2) he speak of "a game" - generalizing about games - not StarCraft in particular (3) he claims that when you're playing at very high speeds, strategy is tossed out the window (4) he claims that when you're playing at very high speeds it's not about the big picture but about reflexes and rehearsal of efficient build orders.
Now, it's hard to argue against (1). Clearly, the man should be entitled to an opinion. And I do not have much to say about (2).
(3) and (4) are more interesting. In previous posts, I have tried to argue that for new players or players with low skill, physically playing the game at high speeds can be so difficult that they have to sacrifice overall strategy because they have to focus on the more mechanical part of playing. I will stand by this claim, until provided with a convincing counter argument. Thus, for some players (3) can be said to be true (again, we're discussing Dan's opinions (1) here).
As for (4) - I think we can all agree that StarCraft is a game where "...reflexes, rehearsal of a super effecient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities..." is important - the disagreement here is about whether or not high-level thinking, out-thinking the opponent and the big picture is part of the picture at higher game speeds. I would argue, again, that this is dependent on the skill and awareness level of the player in question and not something that holds true for everyone, everywhere, every time.
I do not understand why you should find the need to use harsh or derogatory language in response to my posts time and time again.
On May 06 2008 19:23 maybenexttime wrote: He presented his opinions as facts. If you think otherwise, you're just blind.
Not only is he stating his biased opinions as facts, he's also backing them up with made-up stories like the one with Excel... He's essentially commenting on the degree of strategy involved when one's playing at that rate, which he himself is obviously not capable of...
Again, referring to (1) - I would argue that he does in fact present his opinions as just that. Also, the Excel-comment could just as well have been a general comment about what certain people will do to get an advantage and not a StarCraft-specific example.
|
What his opinion is is: "people who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are missing the point.".
Other things he states as facts.
Basically what he's saying is: 'People who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are [in my opinion] missing the point, because (fact) then you can throw stratgy out the window [and thus miss the S part of 'RTS', i.e. "miss the point"].'
So, no, he's not just stating his opinions.
Also no one's arguing that new/low skilled players have to sacrifice overall strategy. The point is that Dan claims that ALL players have to do that. The reason why new/low skilled players have to sacrifice overall strategy is mainly the fact that they enter the game with no idea of what they're supposed to be doing in-game - they want to figure out everything on the fly, which just doesn't work. What's also important is the fact that they're grasp of StarCraft strategy is close to none in the first place; they can't just magicaly learn in during the game, and in order to sacrifice it they'd first have to know it...
|
You can't just say "I'm just expressing an opinion, so I can spout whatever nonsense I want". If an economist wrote an editorial in a magazine or if a scientist wrote an editorial about the current state of science, and the article contained huge factual inaccuracies, unresearched claims, made up stories and showed a clear lack of understanding of the topic, he would get fired, immediately. There has to be standards in journalism.
That's like saying "In my opinion, your mom is a slut." "Oh come on, I'm just stating my opinion, don't attack me!" No, when your "opinions" get published (and are stated as facts) and could influence millions of readers, that's not good enough. Furthermore, opinions most certainly can and often are completely wrong as they are in his case.
|
InterWill is almost as bad as that Un-something German-guy.
Ugh, you say Blizzard should build the game with one speed option. Okay, fair enough. Look at Starcraft:Brood War genius. Pretty much everyone plays the same speed and it's fastest. Duh, everyone should know that unless you're from PCGamer ;P
They built the game with a lot of speeds in mind. The players chose fastest as the optimal speed. There is nothing wrong with playing 15 minute matches as that tends to be the average game length. I hated the fast setting they had when Blizzard had their own ladder. It was slow as hell and games took a lot longer.
We have more than enough empirical data on this, which is hard to refute.
|
On May 06 2008 19:41 InterWill wrote: ...and making it easier for new players could potentially make the beginning of the learning curve less brutal. ....blablabla ....I have tried to argue that for new players or players with low skill, physically playing the game at high speeds can be so difficult that they have to sacrifice overall strategy because they have to focus on the more mechanical part of playing.....blablablabla
I don't know WTF is up with you but RTFA! What were you doing when you were copypasting the quotes? Dan never talked about learning curves for the newbies. In effect, your counter arguments' were not even counter arguments at all but a distraction for your refusal to admit defeat.
|
Osaka26941 Posts
Letmebewithyou since when is posting like that acceptable?
|
Osaka26941 Posts
Also just a few points for Will
My thoughts about game speed and strategy: First of all, I would rather see StarCraft II with only one speed setting. I'm afraid that dividing people into different rule sets will potentially split the community in the long run and I feel that the benefits of multiple speed settings do not overcome the drawbacks.
BW only has one speed, and it is fastest. 99.99% of games made on bnet are fastest, so there is no division of community here. Like all games, the community generally finds a series of agreed upon settings and maintains them.
For new players, starting playing at Fastest can feel overwhelming. You struggle to control your units, train units and workers, expanding, teching and scouting. If time is to be considered a resource, which is a good analogy for StarCraft, then a new player is surely losing time with every move she makes. For a new player, this time adds up quickly and as it does it builds up a mountain of frustration. If the game is played on a high enough speed setting, the player might struggle to to perform even basic actions - like producing workers or scouting. And that further adds to the frustration.
You are illustrating a beginner that seems to have all the knowledge of a seasoned player. The beginner does not struggle that much because they do not know they have to do all those things. Also, I think you overestimate the difficulty of speed here. Beginners are usually not new to computer games themselves, just to StarCraft. Their experience and physical abilities carry over from game to game.
Now, say she isn't necessarily playing to become the best. Then she will still probably feel that reaching the calm - making the game less stressful - is a prerequisite for fun. This calm would indeed be easier to reach where the game speed slower.
This is a huge assumption on your part. You are saying that calmness is the only way to play the game for fun, but all my experience in gaming says the opposite. Playing StarCraft is thrilling, and even hobbyists who play like to get a feeling of excitement, even if it is only by executing one sweet attack in an otherwise crushing defeat.
Just to put things in perspective, I am a below-average speed gamer. About 100 apm. There are many things in the game I cannot do, however, I am still able to execute strategy, move my armies, and win games based on cunning and skill. Speed limits me from being the best, but I have never ever felt frustration or felt that my strategical thinking was hindered because of it.
The author of this article was frustrated not because of speed, but because of a lack of knowledge about the game itself. The path to learning about the game is not through slower play, but through playing, talking, and sharing with others who play. This is the experience of the vast majority of gamers and 100% of the 30,000 members of this site (otherwise why else would they be here?) That environment, THIS environment on TL is what made StarCraft great.
Finally, simply, if his arguments were true, why has fastest become the universally accepted speed of BW? If slowing the game down for people, for beginners (who out number pros) why doesn't anyone play on it?
|
MURICA15980 Posts
And take Mani's current quote for instance:
"Winner of the first ever StarCraft II 2v2 tournament; paired with Liquid`Meat"
A 100 APMer won that tournament. Obviously pure speed isn't the only thing that wins games, even on Starcraft II.
|
On May 06 2008 19:58 maybenexttime wrote: What his opinion is is: "people who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are missing the point.".
Other things he states as facts.
Basically what he's saying is: 'People who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are [in my opinion] missing the point, because (fact) then you can throw stratgy out the window [and thus miss the S part of 'RTS', i.e. "miss the point"].'
So, no, he's not just stating his opinions.
Also no one's arguing that new/low skilled players have to sacrifice overall strategy. The point is that Dan claims that ALL players have to do that. The reason why new/low skilled players have to sacrifice overall strategy is mainly the fact that they enter the game with no idea of what they're supposed to be doing in-game - they want to figure out everything on the fly, which just doesn't work. What's also important is the fact that they're grasp of StarCraft strategy is close to none in the first place; they can't just magicaly learn in during the game, and in order to sacrifice it they'd first have to know it... Why do you take "because then you can throw strategy out the window" as fact? If he would have written: "People who read PC Gamer but not my column are missing the point, because that's where the interesting stuff is written" would you have taken the argument as fact or opinion?
Also, where is he claiming that "ALL players have to do that"?On May 06 2008 20:25 teamsolid wrote: You can't just say "I'm just expressing an opinion, so I can spout whatever nonsense I want". If an economist wrote an editorial in a magazine or if a scientist wrote an editorial about the current state of science, and the article contained huge factual inaccuracies, unresearched claims, made up stories and showed a clear lack of understanding of the topic, he would get fired, immediately. There has to be standards in journalism.
That's like saying "In my opinion, your mom is a slut." "Oh come on, I'm just stating my opinion, don't attack me!" No, when your "opinions" get published (and are stated as facts) and could influence millions of readers, that's not good enough. Furthermore, opinions most certainly can and often are completely wrong as they are in his case. For all but very skilled and dedicated people, his argument holds true. It might not hold true for this particular subset of players of a specific game in the RTS genre, but that isn't the claim Dan's making.
On May 06 2008 21:41 Showtime! wrote: InterWill is almost as bad as that Un-something German-guy.
Ugh, you say Blizzard should build the game with one speed option. Okay, fair enough. Look at Starcraft:Brood War genius. Pretty much everyone plays the same speed and it's fastest. Duh, everyone should know that unless you're from PCGamer ;P
They built the game with a lot of speeds in mind. The players chose fastest as the optimal speed. There is nothing wrong with playing 15 minute matches as that tends to be the average game length. I hated the fast setting they had when Blizzard had their own ladder. It was slow as hell and games took a lot longer.
We have more than enough empirical data on this, which is hard to refute. I know that "pretty much everyone plays the same speed and it's fastest" I also know that this wasn't always the case - that the game started out being played on fast. I also know that Blizzard chose to lock the game speed in Warcraft III and that they generally want to keep the amount of options for players at a minimum to make matchmaking easier (see Rob Pardo's GDC08 presentation).
The original StarCraft may have been built with different speeds in mind, but in reality few speeds are viable. And I agree that there's nothing wrong with 15 minute games, nor have I claimed anything else.
On May 06 2008 23:00 Aerox wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2008 19:41 InterWill wrote: ...and making it easier for new players could potentially make the beginning of the learning curve less brutal. ....blablabla ....I have tried to argue that for new players or players with low skill, physically playing the game at high speeds can be so difficult that they have to sacrifice overall strategy because they have to focus on the more mechanical part of playing.....blablablabla
I don't know WTF is up with you but RTFA! What were you doing when you were copypasting the quotes? Dan never talked about learning curves for the newbies. In effect, your counter arguments' were not even counter arguments at all but a distraction for your refusal to admit defeat. Oh, sir. I never claimed that Dan talked about learning curves for newbies - what I argued was that for newbies his arguments hold water.
@Manifesto7: Thank you for taking my posts seriously and not resorting to personal attacks. I know that many of the posters on this board feels my arguments are too ill thought out to even respond to, but the name calling should not be necessary on a board like this one.
Your points and arguments are valid, and expose the lack of accuracy in my choice of words. I can acknowledge that the game is an action RTS and that the hectic game play is one of the defining traits of StarCraft - that's not what I'm getting at. The calm I speak of was not meant to be taken at the player actually feeling calm, but rather reaching a point where the vast majority of actions are no longer done only in stressed panic. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it when you're no longer actually thinking "must build probe, must train zealot, must train zealot, must train zealot, must build probe, must build pylon, must OH SHIT..." but rather just going with the flow of the game.
Finally, about the game speed. If BW effectively only has one speed - why not lock it to that speed? If there would have been an even faster speed, that would probably be the speed at which we would be playing StarCraft at present day - and that would have made the game even harder to learn for new players.
The option of playing at a slower speed is used (playing games on faster give you the feeling of being a notch better at the game overall) - but [I believe that] the lower rungs of the speed ladder are not used because it differs too much from the way the game is played professionally.
|
Blizzard never knew people would be playing at fastest. Ladder games were stuck on fast setting, and if there was only one setting (lower than fastest) SC would probably have never lasted as long as it has.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
But making the game easier for entry is not an excuse to eliminate the importance of mechanics in any competitive activity. Auto-aim is turned off for shooters. For bowlers, the bumpers next to the gutters are taken down. The basketball hoop doesn't get any wider. The golf ball still needs to find the hole in X amount of strokes. The strike zone is still roughly between the knees and shoulders. You still cannot use your hands in soccer, even if you suck.
If anything, the mechanics are made even harder. The three-point line is moved further out for NBA, the tee-off start position is moved back in golf.
Sure, strategy should be a big part of an RTS like Starcraft. And frankly, we argue that it is. It is whether you make the game slow or fast. The only thing that changes when you change speed is the skills required in the mechanics of the game to keep up. And that, we are saying, is what makes the game fun.
I do acknowledge that making the mechanics TOO hard is no fun. If the strike zone were a mere 4x4 inch square, I'm sure people would just walk across the bases for free all the time. If the three-point line was at the half line while making the hoop much smaller and much higher, it would suck out a lot of the fun. If the goal for soccer was much smaller, we'd see a lot more 0-0 games. And if there were absolutely no hotkeying in Stracraft and you only had mouse-only, games would be so much less exciting.
Sometimes, mechanics need to be easier for the game to be fun. But they also need to be hard enough to be enjoyable at all levels. Sure, its hard to really enjoy a good game of tennis until you can start hitting the ball across the net at each other and start a reasonable rally, but it doesn't mean players who can't even make JV on the high school tennis team can't enjoy the sport - they'll probably have tons of fun just hitting it back and forth to each other, competing with each other who are at their own level. But it doesn't mean you have to make the game any easier, as the game is just fine and enjoyed by millions when it is played at Wimbledon.
|
On May 05 2008 12:47 ShadowDrgn wrote: You guys are pretty ruthless, and 11 pages??
I don't think the min/maxers (that's us!) take the strategy out of RTS, we take the real-time part out. In any matchup, the number of strategies you can realistically use are so limited that decent players know them all and have counters prearranged. Strategy is created beforehand; the game is your time to execute that strategy. This isn't chess - there aren't so many possible move combinations that it's impossible to account for them all. It's a complete fallacy to think that a slower game speed is going to give you enough time to have a strategic epiphany in the middle of the game that leads to your victory. While that would indeed be very exciting, it's just not realistic among players with any experience with the game. Among newbies? They can play against each other on slower game settings if they need time to ponder their moves.
What you obliviously disregard is the tactical part, which is immensely large and decisive, and it is a combination of thinking + speedy execution.
Your rant about pre-made strategies has no solid point really, there are a number of major 'trends' or strategies, but they take place in each game with small variations which can lead to rather large discrepancies in late game. And it is normal to have pre-made strategies, they exist even in Chess (the difference between Chess and SC is that the tactical part is basically the same as the strategic part in chess, while in Starcraft they tend to be two different things)
Speed is needed for a Real Time Strategy game, because the motherfucker who can yell orders faster wins on the battlefield, if given even conditions.
|
InterWill:
You are right that I did not actually sum the good posts and bad posts, but merely created a random proportion to signify your deficiency created from your only addressing posts that do not add to the content of this discussion. You have now added to the content of this discussion so you are now in the majority in this thread, good job.
I am interested in the foundations of your first thought about multiple speeds in SC2. As you are aware, SC1 has Slowest, Slower, Slow, Normal, Fast, Faster, and Fastest speed settings. I am unaware of any spit in the community along these lines. The only divisions I can find are limited minerals vs fastest style maps, competitive gaming vs casual gaming, melee style play vs UMS play, and head-to-head vs team game. The speed setting has no influence on any of these divisions. Furthermore, we can use battle.net's ladder as a counter example to your idea in that originally it had ONE fixed speed setting (Fast). Having this ONE fixed speed setting did cause a split in the community, and helped spur the creation of cloudmania/cloria ladder. So please describe how you came to this conclusion.
Your next point I can agree with on one level. There is a speed at which a game can become mechanically unplayable. However, mechanics are the "mindless clicking" Dan refers to, which is not to be confused with strategy. I believe you are muddling the concepts of game mechanics and strategy into the same concept which is not the case. A game mechanic would be a skill acquired in order to play a game, and the goal is the master to a level in which the action is second nature. In SC this would be ideas like hotkey structure, increasing APM to better coordinate attacks, individual unit micro, and so on. Other games also have specific mechanics such as strafing, bunny hoping, and a million others. You can go to www.speeddemosarchives.com and see the vast variety of game mechanics employed to beat games at speed. Strategy on the other hand while effected by a players game mechanics is a completely separate idea. Strategy is an underlying concept that a player uses to map out the general flow of the game. Much like an Olympic hurdler plans out his race, step step jump, step step jump, SC players design strategy to win a game. There are some excellent threads on the strategic evolutions in SC on this website, and I'm sure if you wish to read them somebody can find links for you. It is time for this confusion about game mechanics and strategy to cease as the crux of any argument since they are two independent concepts.
Your next paragraph goes to describe new players need a slower setting, but my memory extends long enough to recall your first point. There should only be one game setting. So drawing your true meaning, is it that the game should only be played at a level were the most incompetent player has adequate time to make decisions? Back when Tekken first came out in the arcades, and I had to look at my players little help picture to figure out moves, I never thought the speed of the game was the reason for my constant ability to lose. The truth is that if any player of a game feels unduly frustrated, have no means to gain necessary abilities to improve, or does not have an interest enough to improve that player might find a new game a better match for their interests. I know a lot of people love to play RPG's. I fit into 2 of the 3 areas I have listed, so I don't play RPG's. In summary, just because a company creates a game, everyone in the world does not have to love playing it.
Your next paragraph discusses how an inexperienced player will throw strategy out of a window. I believe this statement fails itself, in that an inexperienced player has not the strategy to throw. And at many levels the outcome of a game is either out and out superior play or a sufficient lack of mistakes to secure the victory. I'm not sure why this would prove different for your female gamer, so I agree.
You then discuss your female gamer improving her game mechanics. I believe you err when you state it creates a sense of calm. The truth is it creates a sense of trust. You trust your game mechanics to allow marines and medics to attack lurkers. You trust your game mechanics to allow you to macro during an attack. Then you say your fiction is a fallacy, and I'm glad you recognize your fault. However, the reason is incorrect since the "calm" never existed any how. In a game like SC there are always evolving game mechanics to learn, but I cannot say this disturbs my play in any way. In fact, it has the opposite effect of keeping the game fresh and current. You then continue to say inexperienced players cannot strategize on the fly. I'm not sure how this effects your argument as a whole. Do you believe having more time to ponder upon the real time reconnaissance that did not occur or historical information the inexperienced player does not have would improve decision making? It's a bit like saying if I give you long enough to sit in a room and think about it, you will come out with an atomic bomb or perhaps decent arguments to support game speed effecting strategy. If your female gamer's goal is to not be the best, then she would not be hampered by losing. Therefore, losing a game would have no impact on her prerequisite for fun.
The challenge for Blizzard is to design a game which promotes a decade or more of exploration and mastery, or they face the labels that go along with failed sequels. The onus is not on Blizzard to nerf their game for inexperienced players, but for those inexperienced players if interested to apply some time to learn game mechanics and strategy to compete at a higher level. This does not mean the game will not be enjoyable at low levels of play, but that there is an acceptance for the fact that skill levels will differ. Therefore it is our duty as gamers to strive to move up the skill ladder, and not ask for game developers to push the ceiling lower.
Thank you again for posting your position.
|
Tossgirl started out with 280 APM. He has no excuse! Haha.
|
|
|
|