EPTGeneral Discussion - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Games |
Please be advised: We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable. After that we will require new threads to discuss topics. Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread. Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
On October 28 2015 21:15 Hider wrote: A problem with the "RTS-system" in an RTS game (e.g. Starcraft) is that you need to make a ton decisions on top of all the mechanical requirements at once, which significantly raises the learning barrier. In fact, I think a MOBA P/B-system actually makes more sense in an RTS for a variety of reasons. In some ways, the "which units should i get in an RTS?" can be compared to "which item should I buy in a MOBA?". But the difference between OW and a MOBA is that changing a hero is much more direct impactful than buying an item in LOL. Often, the optimal item to get is more decided by math than an analysis of the strategic context. As a consequence, most ppl just buy the say items over and over because they don't really care about that aspect of League of Legends. Hence, as a general design rule, you should only add an extra elemnt/complexity to the game if it creates impactful and engaging decisions for the player. And from what I gathered, OW does that extremely well. It seems to be a strategic aspect that's relevant for the casual player as well as the competitive player. The more I look at this game the more impressed I am with the design, and I am normally not a guy that easily get overhyped. In fact, I am typically the guy trying to tell "fanboys" that their game won't be succesful for XYZ reasons (which they obviously don't like to hear), but in this case I am on the board. Overwatch has everything going for it to be succesful. The only noticeable thing that I can see hindering its growth rate somewhat is if its not F2P. hopefully, Blizzard adds a P/B phase to the game during open beta it'll open up different play styles & strategies game looks polished how much depth the game has after the shine wears away is the question and I can't imagine Blizzard not seriously considering implementing some kind of ranking system | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21713 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:15 udgnim wrote: hopefully, Blizzard adds a P/B phase to the game during open beta it'll open up different play styles & strategies game looks polished how much depth the game has after the shine wears away is the question and I can't imagine Blizzard not seriously considering implementing some kind of ranking system The TF model of switching characters during the game prohibits a pick phase. I dont expect a ban phase to happen because of the flexible nature of characters. Would the game be better if characters were locked for a match and a p/b was added? I donno maybe. It would add more strategy I guess. But in the current state of the game I dont see them ever adding a p/b | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
it'll open up different play styles & strategies 99% it won't happen, because it's a really bad solution for a couple of reasons: 1. Delays when the fun parts of the game starts. Most people don't care that much about P/B-phase. Take LOL as an example, everyone just wants to play theirr favourite champion and get into the action asap. When random strangers play, P/B is awfull from a strategic perspective. 2. It removes a ton of the strategic counteroptions during the game. And the elemnt of picking the right hero from the start is still there. 3. Makes the playing experience worse because you take an option away from people who would like to try different heroes during a game.- even if there is no strategic reason behind it. 4. If teams can bascially win in P/B-phase, the actual playing experience will be awfull during the game. It will also make it much less exciting for viewers. What will be more exciting is that a team that currently has a strategic disdavantage can change their strategy on the fly so they get an advantage. The only disadvantage of not having P/B is that we may risk having some heroes dominate the a specific map if they are quite imbalanced. But with active balancing and well-throughout design - both in terms of heroes and maps - that issue won't be as significant. The important thing is that Blizzard goes for quality over quantity when adding new heroes. Do not add heroes that heavily overlap with other units because that will make balancing much harder. Instead they should add heroes that can be used to counter other heoes so we get an infinitive stream of counteroptions. Final thoughts What Blizzard have done is to actually take the best parts of other games and mix them into Overwatch in a way that makes sense. I see a ton of other gamedevelopers mix in parts from sucesful games and fail in the proces. For instance, in LOTV when David Kim thinks its a good idea to give all units unimpactful abilities that doesn't promote movement-based micro. Or in Project Atlas (new RTS game underway) when the developers make it a game where you are very reliant on your teammates because most other succesful games are teambased. Instead the reason those games (Dota, LOL, CS:GO) are sucesful is because they are easier to learn than a game like Starcraft and have better interactions. And then you look at Heroes of the Storm where the developers got convinced that the key to being super succesful was to reduce the learning barrier and the skillcap/outplay potential at the same time. Whereas having a proper skillcap is essential to keep players motivated to play the game. Overwatch will most likely be the next big game because the developers seem to get everything right and mixed stuff together that makes sense. P/B would never make sense for this game! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:20 Gorsameth wrote: The TF model of switching characters during the game prohibits a pick phase. I dont expect a ban phase to happen because of the flexible nature of characters. Would the game be better if characters were locked for a match and a p/b was added? I donno maybe. It would add more strategy I guess. But in the current state of the game I dont see them ever adding a p/b A cool down between switch characters seems like the solution. Or added time on the respawn timer. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On October 28 2015 21:12 sacrilegious wrote: Cool, I knew I could count on you being one of those people coming to Blizzard's defense, because they're Blizzard Please also read my OP again, I never asked, begged, or requested my account be flagged for this game. I'm purely stating facts on the way these processes have been handled based on Hearthstone and HotS... period. But hey if you want to name call to make you feel better, congrats. I'm going to go cry in the corner now like you told me. Whether you are right or wrong about your first statement, is not the point of what I was getting to, but please call me more names Or you can look around and realize 0 person besides you gives a fuck. What a doofus. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I doubt Blizzard will change anything, though, because people will accept this advantage as something they just have to put up with. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:24 Plansix wrote: A cool down between switch characters seems like the solution. Or added time on the respawn timer. I don't think that's neccasary because instant switch makes it easier for a team to make a comeback. And I think a back-and-fourth close game is generally much more exciting than a game that's onesided. As long as there still is a significant reward for outplaying the opponent (which definitely seems to be the case), a comeback mechanic almost always makes the overall experience better. | ||
|
iXphobos
Germany1464 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:36 TheTenthDoc wrote: The other advantage to pick/ban is that when characters are (inevitably) monetized, switching characters mid-game offers a considerable advantage to individuals who have bought more characters. I don't think even the people that somehow believes having more characters in MOBA isn't an advantage would disagree with that. I doubt Blizzard will change anything, though, because people will accept this advantage as something they just have to put up with. Blizz said on the last beta streamer event that whatever the payment model will be, all heroes will be available for free for all players from the start. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11856 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:46 iXphobos wrote: Blizz said on the last beta streamer event that whatever the payment model will be, all heroes will be available for free for all players from the start. Oh then it might be interesting. Stopped with LoL and smite due to the unlock systems and stuck to DotA instead. Unlocks and similar things that cause an uneven play-field are the bane of any multi player game. In single player you don't really notice it unless they shove it in your face, you just have more challenge. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:46 iXphobos wrote: Blizz said on the last beta streamer event that whatever the payment model will be, all heroes will be available for free for all players from the start. Interesting. Maybe they will add more later on, but a robust core of heroes for everyone sounds pretty great. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On the topic of pick/ban: they should have some competitive mode with pick/ban, or maybe they could think about limiting the in game subs per team to a certain amount (say three or so), which would allow on the fly adjustments similar to football subs or so. Of course also only for competitive, I doubt that this could work with a random pick up group. On October 28 2015 22:23 Hider wrote: And then you look at Heroes of the Storm where the developers got convinced that the key to being super succesful was to reduce the learning barrier and the skillcap/outplay potential at the same time. Whereas having a proper skillcap is essential to keep players motivated to play the game. Yeah, they reduced the entry barrier, true, but you are very wrong on the skillcap/outplay potential, just so you know. If you don't believe me, I'd suggest watching the Blizzcon tourney starting tonight, and watch Team Dk, the Korean qualificant, stomp their opposition. There is huuuuuge space to improve for even the top teams. Not saying Heroes is successful thus far - it is not, and that has a lot to do with the Moba market being saturated by two big games already. Also, the Heroes alpha was accessible early on, which lead to a lot of people getting stuck with preconceived notions in their head about the game, which either got changed since the last time they tried or watched the game, or they just got into a match in scrub league, didn't understand what was going on, and blamed it on the game for not allowing their perceived leet skillz ("youtube personality xyz has said hots is easy, hurrdurrr, so I must rock at it. shit I got killed, game suxxorz, hots has no skill cap, lol") to carry them to victory. /rant | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
Overwatch looks like there's a LOT more individual outplay potential. Everyone can kill everyone else in the right circumstance and with the right skill. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On October 28 2015 23:07 deth2munkies wrote: What they removed was individual outplay potential in Heroes. There's almost nothing you can do in certain 1v1 matchups, and team support is absolutely essential. Whereas yesterday in LoL I saw a fed Riven flash stun and combo 4 people to death before they could do anything, then complete the Pentakill. Overwatch looks like there's a LOT more individual outplay potential. Everyone can kill everyone else in the right circumstance and with the right skill. Isn't that pretty much standard in FPS games anyway? One good person can outplay multiple people in most shooters just through movement and better skill. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
Yeah, they reduced the entry barrier, true, but you are very wrong on the skillcap/outplay potential, just so you know. If you don't believe me, They reduced the skillcap for individuals. There is only skillcap in terms of teamcoordination, which is not relevant for most people. The ability to be an individual and outplay your opponent is extremely important in any game regardless of genre. If you almost always traded 1 to 1 in a FPS it would also be pretty boring for players as there would be little motivation to further improve your skillset. Not saying Heroes is successful thus far - it is not, and that has a lot to do with the Moba market being saturated by two big games already. Well, the game actually does a lot of things well, which has led to a reasonable/acceptable playerbase. But from my experience, alot of people look at it in a "yeh that's a pretty fun game, but I rather play this game with my friends on teamspeek. For soloq I play CS:GO or LOL". I think Overwatch is a game that will satisfy a ton of different segments. It's easy to learn. It has strategy. It has execution. It has action and it seems to have comeback-potential as well. Wouldn't surprise me if the MOBA-genre in the west declines significantly over the coming years - partly as a consequence of Overwatch. CS:GO has enough motivation and is a different enough experience from OW that it will continue to do well though. or they just got into a match in scrub league, didn't understand what was going on, and blamed it on the game for not allowing their perceived leet skill Well, ask yourself why this doesn't happen for OW (?). Everyone who have tried the game have spoke well about it. My answer: Because the skillcap is immediately obvious and not just reliant on teamcoordination. I think your judgement of Heroes of the Storm is actually a bit off. From my experience, most people who have briefly tried or watched a few clips have been like "meh..:" why do I care about lower learning barrier; I can continue playing DOTA/LOL." That really hasn't changed from alpha to release. That theory is supported by Google Trends data, which shows a huge increase in interest around release date, and then it declined to the level before the game was released. That's indignitive of a lot of players having giving it a shot, and then stopped caring about it briefly after. On the other hand, DOTA and LOL search activity have continued to increase/stabilize over the last couple of years. In order to get players excited about the game, the big outplay potential needs to be there. When people watch Overwatch clips and streams, they start imagining all of the cool stuff you cand do if you are skilled enough. That's what motivates players, and the aspect simply lacks in HOTS. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
 From my experience, most people who have briefly tried or watched a few clips have been like "meh..:" why do I care about lower learning barrier; I can continue playing DOTA/LOL." That really hasn't changed from alpha to release. I very much agree with that. People do not invest any time in it and go with the majority opinion that was formed back in early tech alpha. They do not feel the urge to bother with the game, because there are already popular options. I wish Overwatch that it will not suffer the same fate as Heroes, and everything indicates that the conditions are better: there is no popular TF-like shooter at the moment (in fact, there is only one successful FPS at all right now), and initial reviews are good. They are releasing beta only after it was already in a healthy state, it seems. We'll see how it fares once more people get their hands on it and how the competitive format will develop. I for sure will give it a fair shot and will see if I find it to be a good game, personally. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21713 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 29 2015 00:13 ACrow wrote: I wish Overwatch that it will not suffer the same fate as Heroes I haven't followed Heroes, has the "fate" of the game already been determined or is that just you? What do you mean? Nonetheless I watched like 30 minutes of if and I think it looks interesting. I watched Summit play the Reaper and I'm pretty sure I'll fucking hate the game because of that type of bullshit though. Will have to see. It looks like a game with immense potential but I imagine it'll be frustrating as hell. I'm probably too old for things that are different, I'm probably stuck playing Counter Strike forever. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On October 28 2015 22:54 Yurie wrote: Oh then it might be interesting. Stopped with LoL and smite due to the unlock systems and stuck to DotA instead. Unlocks and similar things that cause an uneven play-field are the bane of any multi player game. In single player you don't really notice it unless they shove it in your face, you just have more challenge. I've noticed that Blizzard games tend to use different business models, they really use every opportunity to experiment (for a while it was WoW - subscription, D3 - RMAH / microtransactions, SC2 - eSports, HoTS - unlocks/dlc) Currently D3 seems to have reverted to traditional, selling game copies outside Asia, so now we have Overwatch looking to try how cosmetic microtransactions solely work out (WoW does have cosmetics too). Seems Blizzard really wants to nail down a microtransaction model (remember how SC2 was going to monetize the arcade?) Also, received a Blizzard email! It's for Blizzcon =(. Then again best to check the launcher, I recall playing Heroes for like a week before I got the email invite. | ||
| ||
