|
On November 03 2010 02:35 lowkontrast wrote:Show nested quote +When you join a TF2 game, you're messing around, firing rockets here, switching classes there, teams are getting autobalanced etc. It's great fun, absolutely, but aside from the really top end clan scrims, there's nothing competitive about it. I have no sense that the other team is desperately trying to win so much as both teams are just sort of chilling out and having fun like you might with three buddies when you play smash brothers.
That's great for TF2. But not for DOTA. I want to see a really serious ladder system, not the standard FPS model of having 12 vs. 12 and people just checking through their server browser to find a game they can hop into that valve seems to love on the basis that it "promotes community."
DOTA 2 should be all about eating carebears alive. Valve delivered ground breaking single player games regarded as some of the best in the industry (Half-Life 1 + 2). Valve delivered what is arguably the most competitive first person shooter (Counter-Strike). Valve delivered what some people regard as the best multiplayer experience (TF2). Valve delivered one of the best first person shooter puzzle games of all time (Portal). They've got a lot of experience in many different places, I think they're aware of how you can't structure different games in the same way.
I hate to break it to you (and I love Valve) but,
Valve didn't create counter-strike.
Valve didn't create team fortress (although they did make TF2, a very casual, but fun, shooter).
Valve didn't create portal.
|
On November 03 2010 02:50 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 02:35 lowkontrast wrote:When you join a TF2 game, you're messing around, firing rockets here, switching classes there, teams are getting autobalanced etc. It's great fun, absolutely, but aside from the really top end clan scrims, there's nothing competitive about it. I have no sense that the other team is desperately trying to win so much as both teams are just sort of chilling out and having fun like you might with three buddies when you play smash brothers.
That's great for TF2. But not for DOTA. I want to see a really serious ladder system, not the standard FPS model of having 12 vs. 12 and people just checking through their server browser to find a game they can hop into that valve seems to love on the basis that it "promotes community."
DOTA 2 should be all about eating carebears alive. Valve delivered ground breaking single player games regarded as some of the best in the industry (Half-Life 1 + 2). Valve delivered what is arguably the most competitive first person shooter (Counter-Strike). Valve delivered what some people regard as the best multiplayer experience (TF2). Valve delivered one of the best first person shooter puzzle games of all time (Portal). They've got a lot of experience in many different places, I think they're aware of how you can't structure different games in the same way. I hate to break it to you (and I love Valve) but, Valve didn't create counter-strike. Valve didn't create team fortress (although they did make TF2, a very casual, but fun, shooter). Valve didn't create portal.
Valve created Portal (but not the concept, although they hired the people who did). And they hired pretty much everyone who was instrumental in creating TF & CS, so they may as well have.
|
On November 03 2010 02:50 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 02:35 lowkontrast wrote:When you join a TF2 game, you're messing around, firing rockets here, switching classes there, teams are getting autobalanced etc. It's great fun, absolutely, but aside from the really top end clan scrims, there's nothing competitive about it. I have no sense that the other team is desperately trying to win so much as both teams are just sort of chilling out and having fun like you might with three buddies when you play smash brothers.
That's great for TF2. But not for DOTA. I want to see a really serious ladder system, not the standard FPS model of having 12 vs. 12 and people just checking through their server browser to find a game they can hop into that valve seems to love on the basis that it "promotes community."
DOTA 2 should be all about eating carebears alive. Valve delivered ground breaking single player games regarded as some of the best in the industry (Half-Life 1 + 2). Valve delivered what is arguably the most competitive first person shooter (Counter-Strike). Valve delivered what some people regard as the best multiplayer experience (TF2). Valve delivered one of the best first person shooter puzzle games of all time (Portal). They've got a lot of experience in many different places, I think they're aware of how you can't structure different games in the same way. I hate to break it to you (and I love Valve) but, Valve didn't create counter-strike. Valve didn't create team fortress (although they did make TF2, a very casual, but fun, shooter). Valve didn't create portal.
I hate to break it to you, but Valve isn't creating Dota 2 either, so the comparison stands.
Note I also mentioned that they delivered those games. Did they not?
|
All three were mods or independent projects which Valve later picked up. Acquiring a company isn't quite the same as coming up with the ideas on your own. There is inevitably turnover, office politics/drama, etc which can lead to trouble.
That said, I think Valve has made some great games and, arguably, an even better game service in Steam. I would list their strengths as
1) Strong narrative and story-telling
2) Intuitive game concepts
3) PR
However I think they have two main weaknesses that a lot of you criticize Blizzard for as well
1) Weak anti-cheat measures
2) Technical programming/QA/QC. Specifically net code as compared to the Quake series, but also other engine bugs that constantly come up through frequent updates to the engine.
|
On November 02 2010 12:54 Lunares wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 12:47 TheYango wrote:
It's been discussed that in a game centered around 1v1, reconnect isn't practical. Spending a minute out of 45 minutes is a slight, but not terrible disadvantage in a MOBA. A minute disconnected in a 1v1 SC2 game is basically an unwinnable advantage, except in situations where the person remaining in game was already ridiculously behind.. I think that SC2 should at least allow the possiblity, eg don't drop the opponent from the game unless the player still in agrees to it. That way in tournies if one player gets dc'd then they can rejoin the game without restarting. Also same thing for casting/shoutcasting. Don't have to be in the game when it starts to join and spectate.
The ideal would be a tournament mode, where the game automatically pauses when someone drops, and then has option to continue after both players are ready... makes sense.. I mean optimally we all play on lan, but there are still times when people drop on lan due to network problems
also... as far as online ladder is concerned, the reconnect is not practical, I agree.
|
Some of these features create problems for a game such as SC2. For example being able to observe random ladder games could promote cheating.
On the other hand I am curious as to why DOTA 2 is confident they will have no lag with a large amount of observers and Battle.net has trouble 1v1.
|
On November 03 2010 03:55 kxr1der wrote:
Some of these features create problems for a game such as SC2. For example being able to observe random ladder games could promote cheating.
On the other hand I am curious as to why DOTA 2 is confident they will have no lag with a large amount of observers and Battle.net has trouble 1v1.
I think its probably due to the way how the game engine is designed. Dota 2 is going to use the source engine so implementing something like HLTV into the game should be ezpz. The record for simultaneous record for viewers on one game for HLTV is like 40k viewers.
|
Why do I feel like I'm the only one who understands this?
First of all, SC2's reconnect feature would only be useful in 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4. In 1v1, you would have to look at the reconnect screen, until your opponent comes back. In games like HoN, or LoL, or DotA, if someone is gone for a few minutes, it doesn't make that big of a difference, because they can just chill at the fountain while waiting to reconnect. In a 1v1 game, you can't just continue playing, you have to wait for opponent to come back. Even in 2v2's and up, it still might not work that well.
SC2's replay system is the way it is because it has to watch and collect data not just from 10 units, but from EVERY unit. Every replay that is recorded has a data output that can literally tell Blizzard which unit walked for how many steps. The amount of information they can collect with Bnet 2.0 is... out of control. That's why it's an always connected experience, because they're collecting all this neat data to be able to fix the game faster. This in turn, gives us a slightly flawed replay system, which works for the most part. Trying to rewind is kind of a huge pain in the ass, but I'm not really too worried about it.
Now, the observing a game mid-progress.... technically is just a fault. I'm not going to defend that, because I believe Blizzard COULD do it, but they need to find a way to do it without giving people the ability to cheat. If they allow open connections on a game, just think of the disasters that may come because of it. Eventually, they'll find a way that minimizes cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
