|
|
On August 24 2016 21:02 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 20:28 zeo wrote:
If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. While I think KeksX's post was laughably misguided and narrow-minded..
Please enlighten me.
On August 24 2016 21:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +For example, people in this thread still complain about it not being 1v1. Although it is quite obvious that 1v1 games are simply too harsh for a large audience. You have to be very specific type of player to enjoy 1v1 games, and those kind of players are extremely rare. That's a theory. I never believed it as I always argued that there were lots of other issues preventing people from playing Starcraft (such as knowledge and mechanical requirements). And then Heartstone came and prooved my theory correct so not sure why you keep repeating that theory as if it was true despite the fact that it was always just a theory and empirical evidence points to the contrary.
The vast success of Co-Op should tell a tale. People just like to play with others and not have all the stress on themselves alone.
Hearthstone works in 1v1 because it is by design not a stressful game unless you really take it to a high level. StarCraft is stressful from minute 1.
|
The vast success of Co-Op should tell a tale. People just like to play with others and not have all the stress on themselves alone.
Because its a completely different experience to play against the computer and a competitive game. Further, Co-Op = you always plays with friends. That's not what we are talking about here. A forced 3v3 game = You will the majority of the game play with complete strangers in a competitive environment.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest that if you could make the exact same game, that it would perform better as 3v3 relative to 1v1. E.g. if you believe that 1v1 games always gets outperformed by 2v2+ games then you are also implying that Blizzard should havde made Heartstone a teamgame.
Imagine taking playing every other turn in Hearstone with a random stranger. I bet that must be quite frustrating.
I believe there are disadvantages and advantages with both approaches. And I think alot of players playing MOBA's are extremely fed up and generally annoyed with random teammates.
When it comes to FPS's and MOBA's, the core gameplay changes when we make it a teamgame. However, in an RTS you can keep the exact same rules. The only thing the teamplay element adds is the addition of teamcoordination, and that units are split between multiple players.
|
Also, I actually heard why Atlas initially made it a 3v3 game in a video from Day9. Surprisingly he didn't use any of those arguments that have been discussed there, and I absolutely hated his reasoning (because it doesn't make any type of sense), but not sure I am allowed to explain it here.
|
On August 24 2016 21:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The vast success of Co-Op should tell a tale. People just like to play with others and not have all the stress on themselves alone. Because its a completely different experience to play against the computer and a competitive game. We are talking here about competitive games and you cannot say that there is any empirical evidence to suggest that if you could make the exact same game, that it would perform better as 3v3 relative to 1v1. There are disadvantages and advatnages with both approaches. When it comes to FPS's and MOBA's, the core gameplay changes when we make it a teamgame. However, in an RTS you can keep the exact same rules. The only thing the teamplay element adds is the addition of teamcoordination.
The fact that 2v2 and 1v1 are played very differently is pretty much evidence that the last part is not true. Nothing stays the same if you add more players to it.
Also I'm not actually trying to say 3v3 > 1v1 always; I'm just saying that competitive 1v1 caters to a very specific audience whereas team games have the advantage of being more open to players. You can always play with a friend which is impossible to do in 1v1, 1v1 you have higher stress levels during a loss (no one to blame but yourself) and so on.
You are completely right that there are advantages and disadvantages for both approaches, but if you take a look at the current gaming market, all team based games are completely dominating compared to 1v1. I doubt that is just because of failure to properly design 1v1 games.
Hearthstone is a great example of how it can work, but it also has almost none of the problems the other 1v1 games have.
|
The fact that 2v2 and 1v1 are played very differently is pretty much evidence that the last part is not true. Nothing stays the same if you add more players to it.
Imagine Counterstrike as a 1v1 game.... Yeh has absolutely no relevance to competitive CS 5v5. From a strategic perspective the gameplay doesn't exist.
Look at Starcraft on the other hand.... Still kinda the same game. 2v2 doesn't really add any fundamental things to it. Some timings and balance is different, but the multitasking is still there. The micro is still there. The macro is still there. Strategies are still there (although optimal strategies are obviously a bit different).
Fundmanetally the game is the same. And that's what is unique to the RTS genre.
|
I personally prefer team games due to more factors in the game. In a 1v1 game the amount of factors is somewhat low and possible strategies limited due to that. Of course there are nuances to those strategies but I don't find those fun. I find it fun to make stuff up on the fly in a situation I havn't faced before. Making a team game much more to my taste.
|
On August 24 2016 21:33 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The fact that 2v2 and 1v1 are played very differently is pretty much evidence that the last part is not true. Nothing stays the same if you add more players to it. Imagine Counterstrike as a 1v1 game.... Yeh that doesn't make sense on any level. Look at Starcraft on the other hand.... Still kinda the same game. 2v2 doesn't really add any fundamental things to it. Some timings and balance is different, but you can still get the exact same mechanical feeling in terms of micro and macro. That's unique to the RTS genre.
Counter-Strike was played 1v1/2v2 for a long time actually
Also while I agree with you on the SC2 mechanical part, I know a lot of players that wouldn't. For many SC2 is 1v1 and 1v1 only, everything else is for casuals. Just go on reddit and ask about competitive 2v2.
|
In a 1v1 game the amount of factors is somewhat low and possible strategies limited due to that.
In an RTS that's only true if the design is bad. E.g. if there are just a few optimal builds/unit compositions that are superior.
With proper design you can however make an infitnitive amount of different styles, openings, strategies w/e viable.
|
On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 21:02 207aicila wrote:On August 24 2016 20:28 zeo wrote:
If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. While I think KeksX's post was laughably misguided and narrow-minded.. Please enlighten me.
Very well.
On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:
There's a reason RTS is dying and MOBAs are not.
Your post bears the pretense of knowing why RTS is dying, but the only reason you manage to bring up is quite far from the truth. But hey, that's the BW community for you, always lacking in perspective, now as they did back then too.
On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:
The majority disagrees with you and thinks caring about buildings is tedious and annoying.
This is literally incorrect. I can tell you from being a part of many different RTS communities, from BW to AoE 1/2, to CnC and Total Annihilation and Rise of Nations and AoM and Empire Earth and others that don't come to mind easily.
The vast majority of people who used to play RTS, could not give a toss about multiplayer other than casually vs. friends/family, they hated the micro-intensive and multitask intensive nature of multiplayer that really emphasizes "real-time" over strategy in most of these games (and Starcraft especially, which is why many old school RTS players don't actually fancy Starcraft believe it or not), they just like to take their time slowly building their base, taking over the map and winning. Starcraft despite its success and longevity is actually very far removed from what the average RTS player used to love and might still love. This is the opinion that I've come to know over the years, and it hasn't changed much btw, I still bump into random people from those games every now and then, and they express very similar sentiments.
|
CS5v5 vs CS1v1 is a completely crazy analogy given how the economics and carry limitations of 1.6 (and forward) impact how the game is played... 5v5 is way different not only because there are 5 rifles instead of 1, but also because there are 5 different sets of grenades, armor, possible bombs, etc. quake clan arena vs quake dueling would be a better analogy imo
|
One of the many problems with Starcraft 2, BW and RTS in general is that people need to do so much research outside the game to play them. Build orders are a basic part of those games, but there is no ingame system for tracking build orders or having them displayed during a match.
One of the big reasons for Dota 2 success was the creation of the crowd sourced guide system, which made it possible for anyone to jump into playing a hero and not feel completely lost during that first match. It is a system that has zero impact on higher level gameplay, but helps new people get into the game.
But the podcast Three Moves Ahead pointed out that the main way that RTS games increase difficulty is by forcing the player to juggle several things at once. And the only way the game gets “more competitive” is by increasing the number of balls that need to be juggled. That style of gameplay has a finite audience willing to engage with it. That and the unforgiving nature of the game play that really punishing mistakes.
|
On August 24 2016 21:38 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:On August 24 2016 21:02 207aicila wrote:On August 24 2016 20:28 zeo wrote:
If you make a good game, a really good game.... people will play it regardless of what genre they think they like. While I think KeksX's post was laughably misguided and narrow-minded.. Please enlighten me. Very well. Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:
There's a reason RTS is dying and MOBAs are not. Your post bears the pretense of knowing why RTS is dying, but the only reason you manage to bring up is quite far from the truth. But hey, that's the BW community for you, always lacking in perspective, now as they did back then too. Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 21:18 KeksX wrote:
The majority disagrees with you and thinks caring about buildings is tedious and annoying. This is literally incorrect. I can tell you from being a part of many different RTS communities, from BW to AoE 1/2, to CnC and Total Annihilation and Rise of Nations and AoM and Empire Earth and others that don't come to mind easily. The vast majority of people who used to play RTS, could not give a toss about multiplayer other than casually vs. friends/family, they hated the micro-intensive and multitask intensive nature of multiplayer that really emphasizes "real-time" over strategy in most of these games (and Starcraft especially, which is why many old school RTS players don't actually fancy Starcraft believe it or not), they just like to take their time slowly building their base, taking over the map and winning. Starcraft despite its success and longevity is actually very far removed from what the average RTS player used to love and might still love. This is the opinion that I've come to know over the years, and it hasn't changed much btw, I still bump into random people from those games every now and then, and they express very similar sentiments.
If you actually read what this post is about, you'd realize that this is not about the "taking it slow" base building.
Relevant quote:
building management is such a cool part of broodwar because you can totally change how a choke works just by changing where you put your gates and forg
Thats referring to very, very specific things that take place in the fast-paced environment of BW.
I completely agree that a large part of the RTS community is like what you described. Thats exactly what I'm referring to - the little things you could in StarCraft really fast to optimize your build is what players from other games find annoying.
Also, the "RTS is dying" refers to the fact that the last couple of RTS that made it out and didn't get cancelled were not really a success. There were great titles (Ashes of singularity comes to mind) but with only moderate success at best. And their ranked ladders, if they had any, dropped in activity really fast.
So you have a split genre (StarCraft being the odd one out) that has struggle to find success with a limited playerbase. So I see a need for people to innovate, but thats even harder.
|
On August 24 2016 21:40 Plansix wrote:
One of the many problems with Starcraft 2, BW and RTS in general is that people need to do so much research outside the game to play them. Build orders are a basic part of those games, but there is no ingame system for tracking build orders or having them displayed during a match.
One of the big reasons for Dota 2 success was the creation of the crowd sourced guide system, which made it possible for anyone to jump into playing a hero and not feel completely lost during that first match. It is a system that has zero impact on higher level gameplay, but helps new people get into the game.
But the podcast Three Moves Ahead pointed out that the main way that RTS games increase difficulty is by forcing the player to juggle several things at once. And the only way the game gets “more competitive” is by increasing the number of balls that need to be juggled. That style of gameplay has a finite audience willing to engage with it. That and the unforgiving nature of the game play that really punishing mistakes.
lmfao the difficulty of RTS comes from juggling things? time, apm, and attention are all just extra resources to manage in starcraft, it's part of the finesse that helps define good players from bad.. however, it's not the end all/be all of the game.. if it was, no one would beat julyzerg when he pulls like 600apm, yet flash can ezbop him with 300 apm... the name of the game is efficient allocation of attention, not juggling balls and clicking a lot to spam up apm.. it's a thinking man's game, no matter how much 50 apm players want to complain
|
Also while I agree with you on the SC2 mechanical part, I know a lot of players that wouldn't. For many SC2 is 1v1 and 1v1 only, everything else is for casuals. Just go on reddit and ask about competitive 2v2.
I think you are misunderstanding me somewhat.
Starcraft is extremely flawed in many ways as the learning barrier is way way too high, both when it comes to macro and knowledge requirements. That's why Hearstone can succeed as a 1v1 game because it's really really easy to learn and experience the core mechanics. On the other hand in order to split Marines vs Banelings and attack two locations at the once you need to have played at least hunreds of hours.
But if you can make it alot easier to experience the core micro mechanics in a 1v1 RTS, I don't see why you could not get a large playerbase (assuming you do everything else very well).
When it comes to some casuals prefering 2v2 over 1v1, I believe its because the feeling of ladder anxieity is less. It's definitely not because of the excitement of communicating with random teammates. I can tell you that from experience most of my low level 2v2's had absolutely no team communication. They might as well be 1v1's with different balance and maps.
Hence I simply believe that the reason some of them are playing 2v2 is because the fear of losing is less. Probably due to the fact that they don't care as much about their 2v2 rank as the 1v1 rank.
BUT that absolutely changes when you make the main mode teamgame-based. In teamgames such as Dota, CS:GO and LOL, the players are definitely identifying their self-worth with their rankings (just like in 1v1 Sc2).
Hence in terms of minimizing ladder anxiety, I don't see any noticeable advantages with teamgames.
|
On August 24 2016 21:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Also while I agree with you on the SC2 mechanical part, I know a lot of players that wouldn't. For many SC2 is 1v1 and 1v1 only, everything else is for casuals. Just go on reddit and ask about competitive 2v2. I think you are misunderstanding me somewhat. Starcraft is extremely flawed in many ways as the learning barrier is way way too high, both when it comes to macro and knowledge requirements. That's why Hearstone can succeed as a 1v1 game because it's really really easy to learn and experience the core mechanics. On the other hand in order to split Marines vs Banelings and attack two locations at the once you need to have played at least hunreds of hours. If you can replicate that (too som extent) in an RTS, I don't see why you could not get a large playerbase.
There have been multiple games that tried and failed. From the looks of it, it is either impossible or delivers a result with a completely new fanbase.
For a huge chunk of the SC2 fanbase, the fact that splitting Marines vs Banelings is difficult like that is part of the experience. So removing this would turn off these type of fans.
So I don't know if it can be done - Hearthstone has many things going for it: it's turn-based, almost no mechanical demand and a lot of RNG to it. All factors that take stress away from the player. There was very little you had to do to make a TCG game accessible.
When it comes to 2v2 being significantly different than 1v1... I don't know, maybe some casuals think there is a big difference. Maybe the feeling of ladder anxieity is less. But.... it's definitely not because of the excitement of communicating with random teammates. I can tell you that from experience most of my low level 2v2's had absolutely no team communication.
Hence I simply believe that the reason some of them are playing 2v2 is because the fear of losing is less. Probably due to the fact that they don't care as much about their 2v2 rank as the 1v1 rank.
Thats actually a really good point and I agree 100%.
BUT that absolutely changes when you make the main mode teamgame-based. In teamgames such as Dota, CS:GO and LOL, the players are definitely identifying them selves with their rankings just like they do in 1v1 Starcraft. Hence in terms of minimizing ladder anxiety, I don't believe there are any real advantages.
Well they are definitely identifying with their ranks if their ranks are good. If their ranks are bad they're just stuck in "elo hell" or never get good teammates.
|
On August 24 2016 21:46 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2016 21:40 Plansix wrote:
One of the many problems with Starcraft 2, BW and RTS in general is that people need to do so much research outside the game to play them. Build orders are a basic part of those games, but there is no ingame system for tracking build orders or having them displayed during a match.
One of the big reasons for Dota 2 success was the creation of the crowd sourced guide system, which made it possible for anyone to jump into playing a hero and not feel completely lost during that first match. It is a system that has zero impact on higher level gameplay, but helps new people get into the game.
But the podcast Three Moves Ahead pointed out that the main way that RTS games increase difficulty is by forcing the player to juggle several things at once. And the only way the game gets “more competitive” is by increasing the number of balls that need to be juggled. That style of gameplay has a finite audience willing to engage with it. That and the unforgiving nature of the game play that really punishing mistakes. lmfao the difficulty of RTS comes from juggling things? time, apm, and attention are all just extra resources to manage in starcraft, it's part of the finesse that helps define good players from bad.. however, it's not the end all/be all of the game.. if it was, no one would beat julyzerg when he pulls like 600apm, yet flash can ezbop him with 300 apm... the name of the game is efficient allocation of attention, not juggling balls and clicking a lot to spam up apm.. it's a thinking man's game, no matter how much 50 apm players want to complain
Yes, but that is not the only way to increase difficulty. Chess is difficult. Go is difficult. Playing guitar is difficult. Dota is difficult. And all of those things are difficult for different reasons. But RTS always seems to focus on increasing the number of actions required in a set period of time as a way to amp up the challenge. And that isn’t the only way to do it.
The main problem for RTS games like BW is that the barrier to entry is too high. It’s like fighting games and execution of special movies. Seth Killian, who worked on street fighter 4, said the biggest barrier to entry for people to get into the deep, competitive part of fighting games was the reliance on “special movies” and execution. And special moves were a hold over form the arcade days when they tried to milk quarters out of kids, not some grand design theme to increase the skill cap. RTS has the same problem. There is a TON of work for a player to even get into the S of RTS and people bounce off that.
|
One of the many problems with Starcraft 2, BW and RTS in general is that people need to do so much research outside the game to play them. Build orders are a basic part of those games, but there is no ingame system for tracking build orders or having them displayed during a match.
One of the big reasons for Dota 2 success was the creation of the crowd sourced guide system, which made it possible for anyone to jump into playing a hero and not feel completely lost during that first match. It is a system that has zero impact on higher level gameplay, but helps new people get into the game.
Never agreed with you more. Whenever I come back to Starcraft after a hiatus and just wants to have a bit of fun it frustrates me so much whenever I go up against this new all-in and I die to it because my build-order wasn't 100% refined.
I also despise the fact that everyone who is new and want to learn how to play Starcraft gets adviced to follow a youtube-series where they only are allowed to focus on macro and build marines.
One of the main advantages of MOBA's relative to RTS is that they made it alot easier to learn by doing rather than to use tutorials outside of the core game to get better.
|
There have been multiple games that tried and failed. From the looks of it, it is either impossible or delivers a result with a completely new fanbase.
And all of those games have been slow-motion games. Slow-motion games to not produce good micro interactions which is the absolute most essential part of an RTS. That's why the only RTS I can enjoy is Starcraft (despite all of its flaws). Units can be moved around fast and responds instantly.
Attempting to reduce the skill-flor while simultaenously removing the microskillcap is not a good approach.
|
I always wondered what you could do with a game that was combining the two - have an RTS commander that takes care of base building and creeps, and players that have small armies/heroes to control. Little bit like the savage series.
When I first heard about Atlas, this was what I was hoping for.
On August 24 2016 21:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +There have been multiple games that tried and failed. From the looks of it, it is either impossible or delivers a result with a completely new fanbase. And all of those games have been slow-motion games. Slow-motion games to not produce good micro interactions which is the absolute most essential part of an RTS. That's why the only RTS I can enjoy is Starcraft (despite all of its flaws).
But as some posts here indicate, these type of games have a big audience as well. They just never attract them for some reason. Or at least not for a long time.
|
On August 24 2016 21:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +One of the many problems with Starcraft 2, BW and RTS in general is that people need to do so much research outside the game to play them. Build orders are a basic part of those games, but there is no ingame system for tracking build orders or having them displayed during a match.
One of the big reasons for Dota 2 success was the creation of the crowd sourced guide system, which made it possible for anyone to jump into playing a hero and not feel completely lost during that first match. It is a system that has zero impact on higher level gameplay, but helps new people get into the game. Never agreed with you more. Whenever I come back to Starcraft after a hiatus and just wants to have a bit of fun it frustrates me so much whenever I go up against this new all-in and I die to it because my build-order wasn't 100% refined. I also despise the fact that everyone who is knew and want to learn how to play Starcraft gets adviced to follow a youtube-series where they only are allowed to focus on macro and build marines. One of the main advantages of MOBA's relative to RTS is that they made it alot easier to learn by doing rather than to use tutorials outside of the core game to get better.
The same. Every time I want to get into SC2 again, I have to go digging around to what is a viable build order and it degrades into me watching replays of pro-matches with a note pad. It is the fucking worst and I don’t have time for that. Literally. I barely can play Dota in my current life and I don’t have time to be digging around the internet looking for build order just to play a couple SC2 matches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
