|
A simple example of simplifying macro mechanics was already mentioned in this thread. Have buildings auto-produce units if you want. Like, at the barracks, you can right-click the marine and then you'll have SC2's auto-cast indicator go on the marine and every time there is available minerals/supply a marine starts building. You can cancel the auto-build or switch it to a different unit whenever you want. Can do it with every production building and also things like inject or mule drops.
The point would be to automate repetitive tasks so that players can focus on the tactics and strategy of the game... moving/attacking units, building new buildings, teching, etc. Currently in SC2, the barrier to actually playing legit strategies is hitting your macro cycles consistently and that level is loosely masters+. Put another way, more than 95% of the active player base consistently loses games because they can't hit their macro cycles consistently, not because of strategic decisions or micro mistakes. It's no fun to lose like that. It's also stressing, not fun (for most people), to repetitively hit a macro cycle.
So that's one area where a new game could make more accessible without taking away strategic decisions. I don't know that I'd want it in SC2 because the game was not built around it, but it would be interesting in a future game that was designed with those mechanics in mind.
Separate from macro mechanics, yes, losing in an instant to one sneak attack sucks. What I would like to see in a future game is to get rid of Fog of War for all neutral areas of the map. Have Fog of War only covers bases, so you have to expand to cut your opponent's vision. When your opponent moves out of their base, you'd see the attack coming and would have some time to prepare. Controlling area with static buildings would be how you'd disguise your army movements late-game (or perhaps late-game units can create fog of war). I think this is a noob friendly idea that also has some advanced strategic consequences in a game built with this in mind.
|
Things I hope the next big RTS game solves
1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
2. Sudden death scenarios removed
No more automatic loss against DT if you have no detection. The game should put you in a disadvantage if you make mistakes, but never in an auto-lose situation.
3. Perfect reaction speed should be an advantage, not a requirement.
There should be nothing in the game like disruptors where if you do not see the novas and react immediately the game is over.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower.
A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
5. The game should be more balanced around normal players and less balanced around pro players.
Ideally the game should be balanced around both. But keeping things is the game that is broken for 99% of the player base but balanced for the top 0.1% is not ok. The playing experience of the larger position of the player base should take precedence.
6. Fun to play is more important than fun to view
If you have a great game that is fun to play e-sport may or may not happen. But the game play experience should never be lowered because something looks cool on pro level but is actually not fun for normal players.
7. There should be no late game I-win armies.
There should be no combination of units that once reached, makes it almost impossible for the other player to win. There should always be a clear counter and really powerful units should have a higher supply cap so that massing them is not possible.
8. Macro should be based more around smart decisions and less around mechanics
The game should provide lots of interesting macro decisions but the difference between bad and good macro should be more based around making smart macro decisions, and less about repetitive key presses.
9. Terrain should matter more
In SC2 terrain matters surprisingly little. Apart from ramps and choke points terrain has very little affect on the outcome of battles. In real life warfare terrain has a large impact on battles and different types of terrain benefit different types of units. I hope the next big RTS make terrain matter more so that tactical skill has more impact instead of just micro skills.
|
On July 07 2021 14:50 washikie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2021 03:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2021 02:55 ReachTheSky wrote:On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly. I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics. It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games. Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more? I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways. We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence. Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place. Sticking with my Valorant comparison i would say that game is far more brutally punishing to noobs. Each round a player can be wiped out almost instantly and have to sit the whole round out due to a well placed head shot. I have seen new players who go 0 kills and 20 deaths spend a whole game hardly playing the game. Compare that to sc2 We’re as outside of dts when you have zero detection it’s rare for a harassment unit to do so much damage that the game is instantly over, it might put you very behind but it does not outright end the game. Allins and cheese on the other hand can be brutally hard on new players. I do think one way to create a better new player experience is to make very early aggression weaker, or at least more about getting an Econ advantage then outright ending the game. When I tried Aoe2 one thing that struck me is how much less early game cheese their is, outside of tower rushes their are very few early attacks that are as strong as the huge variety of one base allins in sc2. This reduces barrier to entry because new players usually get to execute their early game build without being run over by their opponent.
Hm while i see what you are saying here, i think scenarios like this are totally down to matchmaking / not being at the level you should be. Unless one is in the absolute bottom bracket of the whole playerbase, this shouldn't regularly happen ever.
Whereas in sc2 or bw (starcraft) it is incredibly easy to simply lose to any 'abusive' strategy rather easily, where you barely 'played the game', especially as a new player.
One can understand it better when one realizes what usually gets brought up when it comes to 'getting better', people are told they are not supposed to look at their army units and micro them, they're supposed to macro. So in a way, people are told to not interact in fun ways to play the game how it is supposed to be played. That's a problem in my eyes.
Now there could be the argument that i put too much emphasis on player vs player interactions as the main fun factor, but in general i'd say it probably is the most important factor of any multiplayer game, how fun and dynamic these interactions are, how often they happen, etc.
Mastering to put down the production building at the exact time you need it, hit every production cycle, never get supply blocked, all of that imo shouldn't be the core, it should merely facilitate players to outplay their opponents on the field.
Right now all of this is where most of the effort / gameplay goes into for a huge portion of the experience of new / low lvl players. And people wonder why rts games aren't as popular as mobas or shooters, where this isn't the case and the gameplay revolves a lot more around constant pvp.
|
8748 Posts
1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games
smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out)
it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing
you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning
imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on.
sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
|
On July 08 2021 02:38 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players. i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out) it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on. sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players.
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level.
Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant.
|
On July 07 2021 21:15 MockHamill wrote:
Things I hope the next big RTS game solves
1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
2. Sudden death scenarios removed
No more automatic loss against DT if you have no detection. The game should put you in a disadvantage if you make mistakes, but never in an auto-lose situation.
3. Perfect reaction speed should be an advantage, not a requirement.
There should be nothing in the game like disruptors where if you do not see the novas and react immediately the game is over.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower.
A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
5. The game should be more balanced around normal players and less balanced around pro players.
Ideally the game should be balanced around both. But keeping things is the game that is broken for 99% of the player base but balanced for the top 0.1% is not ok. The playing experience of the larger position of the player base should take precedence.
6. Fun to play is more important than fun to view
If you have a great game that is fun to play e-sport may or may not happen. But the game play experience should never be lowered because something looks cool on pro level but is actually not fun for normal players.
7. There should be no late game I-win armies.
There should be no combination of units that once reached, makes it almost impossible for the other player to win. There should always be a clear counter and really powerful units should have a higher supply cap so that massing them is not possible.
8. Macro should be based more around smart decisions and less around mechanics
The game should provide lots of interesting macro decisions but the difference between bad and good macro should be more based around making smart macro decisions, and less about repetitive key presses.
9. Terrain should matter more
In SC2 terrain matters surprisingly little. Apart from ramps and choke points terrain has very little affect on the outcome of battles. In real life warfare terrain has a large impact on battles and different types of terrain benefit different types of units. I hope the next big RTS make terrain matter more so that tactical skill has more impact instead of just micro skills.
1. The people who get upset about "smurfs" are the same people who make up excuses for losing and fail to hold themselves accountable. It doesn't matter how good your opponent is, you lost. You played worse. Now it's up to you to correct that. I firmly believe smurfs don't matter at all and that If you got beat, you got beat and it is your fault entirely. When I see people blaming smurfs when they lose, I automatically know that person isn't a go-getter because they are just making excuses.
2. There is coming back from cloaked units, it's never an auto loss. Most people just give up right away because they don't possess the will to play the game out.
3. Perfect reaction speed IS an advantage, it only becomes a requirement when you are playing someone as equally as fast as yourself, or faster. Removing the requirement to react fast to any scenario would essentially make whatever game you think you are designing a NON-RTS game.
4. Executing micro well is highly satisfactory for the player. Making things less rewarding for the effort put in makes ANY game less interesting to play from a players perspective and definitely more boring to watch from a spectator perspective.
5. I think pros and noobs should be taken into consideration BUT, This is a skill based game. The player who makes the better decisions and plays faster, more precise/accurate should always be rewarded. To balance a unit, around noobs, simply because noobs get dominated by said unit is the equivalent of removing the idea that players should learn to improve. "don't worry hunny, we know you lost and you suck, but were going to make this game easier for you just you can feel a little less bad about yourself".
6. 100% agree that gameplay should not be shaped around what looks fun on a broadcast, but rather should be shaped around what is fun to execute as player working the strat/build etc.
7. I don't think this exists currently. If it did, then why don't we see it in pro play?
8. It's a real time strategy game that requires the use of a mouse and keyboard. This is just the nature of the beast. Either put the energy into being fast or don't.
9. This comes down to map makers and general unit compositions. Terrain could matter a whole lot more for terrans in sc2, but then that map would be considered a terran map or get vetoed more often. Also, Some units just don't really take advantage of terrain.
What i'm about to say is going to come off snooty or elitist, and I want you to know that is not my intention behind what i'm about to say but most of these suggestions scream "i don't like the feeling of losing, please make the game easier to play for me so I don't feel bad as often". But here is the catch 22, a silly matchmaking system is still going to try to make it so you only win half your games, so you are still going to experience those negative feelings anyway. Perhaps instead of expecting games to change in a way that would actually make them worse, change your attitude instead and focus on becoming faster instead.
In general, A lot of the suggestions I see are based around lowering the impact of decisions or unit control. Making these changes does one thing and turn the game into slow paced fighting with a blob of units on each side that don't do anything interesting. Instead of expecting the game to get easier for you, perhaps you should focus on increasing your willpower instead, don't be lazy. Be willing to play fast and do it. Be willing to learn from your mistakes instead of blaiming a "smurf" when in reality it is just someone who is flat out better than you.
What makes RTS so fun to play is the impact a player can have directly over the game through decision making and unit control. When you dumb those down, or lessen the impact that they have on the game, You have a more boring game. Immortal:Gates of Pyre, a game being designed with many of your preferences in mind, Does not look fun to play. I watched the livestream event, The whole game just looked like players were slow moving blobs around that auto attacked. I didn't see a single clutch play or moment at all, it didn't look fun. This is the result of dumbing down rts requirements and it is completely bland.
There are a myriad of reasons why sc2 is in the shape it is in when it comes to popularity and size of the playerbase, but none of those reasons are "the game was too hard". Broodwar is harder and more mechanically demanding, yet is currently more popular when it comes to the rts playerbase AND viewership, even though it's on a severely dated graphics engine, that should speak volumes to any developers out there. You know when RTS games were most popular? When they didn't use algorithms for ladder systems. The original in-game broodwar ladder system, the original pgtour ladder system and the original wgtour ladder system are examples of successful ladder systems that did not use algorithms at all.
|
8748 Posts
On July 08 2021 03:28 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2021 02:38 NonY wrote:1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players. i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out) it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on. sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players. But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1. You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level. Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant.
people still use the word both ways and it's confusing. there are two behaviors here and only one word. it doesnt make sense to use an existing word in a different way if the original way is still in use. your reason for doing this even though you know better is that other people are doing it? ...
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
punishing an innocent person on a losing streak doesnt seem like a good idea. and no one ever has to tank their mmr all at once. they can get to the mmr they want to play at and then follow every win with an instant forfeit loss. adding a lockout period for queuing when leaving a game early would make this process more annoying.
you cant solve this issue by looking at how people behave in sc2 and making a change to prevent or discourage them from behaving that way. there might be a simple workaround to your obstacle that allows them to achieve the same result with slightly different behavior. so if devs really want to minimize this behavior as much as possible, it'll probably be an ongoing battle. saying that solving it is simple is really optimistic
i dont see how it can be fully prevented. if a player anticipates when his opponent is about to leave and just leaves first, and he's able to do this successfully 50%+ of his games, then he can keep his MMR steady over time by trying to do this every game and then letting a few wins go through if his MMR gets too low. it's possible for a system to flag an account for losing too many games while having a higher army value or something like that. but in that case, a human has to review the case and ban them, which if it's a free to play multiplayer (very likely) then they're probably fine with playing a fresh account. introducing low-paid or volunteer humans to review cases introduces all sorts of other flaws (and would be better spent on banning hateful people). and if people figure out how the automatic flagging system works, they'll work around it
so i think part of the solution is to look into what motivates people to do this and try to nudge them away from it. this behavior will probably always exist to some extent but it doesn't need to be an epidemic. if it's rare enough, it's fine. sure, do a few things with the system to make it more difficult / time consuming, but also just get people to stop wanting to do it, and it should be rare enough.
|
Is smurfing the "newb bashing" variety not the alt account kind really that common in sc2? TBH ive been at least diamond since the game was released and masters for many years so i just dont know. In my eyes I just cant understand smurfing in a game like sc2. In games like cs-go, league or dota I can kind of understand the appeal as a way to show off to your team. But in my eyes smurfing in sc2 would just be boring. Its a 1v1 game where if your significantly better than your opponent you can win in under 3 minutes. where is the appeal for smurfs? Are there allot of smurfs at low ranks? I know there are many alt accounts in gm, masters and a few in diamond but I don't really know much outside of that.
|
On July 08 2021 05:51 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2021 03:28 MockHamill wrote:On July 08 2021 02:38 NonY wrote:1. Less smurfs
Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players. i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out) it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on. sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players. But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1. You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level. Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant. people still use the word both ways and it's confusing. there are two behaviors here and only one word. it doesnt make sense to use an existing word in a different way if the original way is still in use. your reason for doing this even though you know better is that other people are doing it? ... Show nested quote +But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1. punishing an innocent person on a losing streak doesnt seem like a good idea. and no one ever has to tank their mmr all at once. they can get to the mmr they want to play at and then follow every win with an instant forfeit loss. adding a lockout period for queuing when leaving a game early would make this process more annoying. you cant solve this issue by looking at how people behave in sc2 and making a change to prevent or discourage them from behaving that way. there might be a simple workaround to your obstacle that allows them to achieve the same result with slightly different behavior. so if devs really want to minimize this behavior as much as possible, it'll probably be an ongoing battle. saying that solving it is simple is really optimistic i dont see how it can be fully prevented. if a player anticipates when his opponent is about to leave and just leaves first, and he's able to do this successfully 50%+ of his games, then he can keep his MMR steady over time by trying to do this every game and then letting a few wins go through if his MMR gets too low. it's possible for a system to flag an account for losing too many games while having a higher army value or something like that. but in that case, a human has to review the case and ban them, which if it's a free to play multiplayer (very likely) then they're probably fine with playing a fresh account. introducing low-paid or volunteer humans to review cases introduces all sorts of other flaws (and would be better spent on banning hateful people). and if people figure out how the automatic flagging system works, they'll work around it so i think part of the solution is to look into what motivates people to do this and try to nudge them away from it. this behavior will probably always exist to some extent but it doesn't need to be an epidemic. if it's rare enough, it's fine. sure, do a few things with the system to make it more difficult / time consuming, but also just get people to stop wanting to do it, and it should be rare enough.
The ladder systems of old(wgt, pgt, original blizzard ladder system from sc/bw) never had these issues. You know an algorithm system doesn't work when blizzard literally sends employees in-game to whatever chat channel a user is in to tell a player they are supposed to care about their mmr. LOL. I don't know what was worse, that or when a blizzard employee strongly suggested to me in chat that they'd let me back into gm if I played only macro instead of testing out aggressive all ins or off-beat builds. blizzard should scrap the usage of severely flawed algorithms and just go back to the old systems from years ago, those actually worked. An algorithm system is supposed to serve people, expecting people to behave/play a certain way just so the system can "work" is expecting the player to serve the algorithmic system - it's entirely unreasonable as I play games for fun and not to serve some stupid algorithm as if it's my responsibility to make sure blizzard's crap is working properly - That's above my paygrade LOL!
On a side note, blizzard is is now hiding the active number of players who are currently playing at any given time by no longer showing how many players are online in chat channels and how many are in game when you log onto a server. Why don't they want the playerbase knowing how many players are playing the game at any given time?
On another sidenote, mineral patch boosting hack is apparently a thing now, Played a guy on ladder and watched the replay afterwards, Was able to see each drone constantly assigned back to the same mineral patch because of it showing the clicks on the minerals. It showed these clicks on each minerals throughout the entire game at all times which would be impossible to do manually throughout a 12 minute game for all your bases simultaneously. Hacks are much more common in this game than people think.
|
Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
|
On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote:
Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
Some people tank mmr for different reasons.
For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons.
Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill.
Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance.
|
Imo smurfing by either definition isn't a problem in sc1&2. There is no 'abandon' mechanic like in LoL or dota2 that punishes you for leaving. You can simply leave as soon as you detect a smurf if you do not wish to play. I enjoy playing against smurfs because it is typically a far better learning opportunity than playing against my own mmr. If avoiding smurfs were an objective of mine, then I would put significant effort to creating a friend group to inhouse with instead of playing on the ladder.
Ideally the devs put all effort into making the game worth playing first. After that a ton of QoL stuff comes before smurfing (both definitions) for me. To solve long queue times I'd rather have an "I'm willing to play people way above my mmr if their (queue is long)" checkbox than any behavior modification.
Some of my favorite sc2 memories were playing against high master/GM while I was still in diamond. Most of the time I didn't stand a chance, but i almost beat combat ex once  .
|
United States12224 Posts
On July 08 2021 10:25 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote:
Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate. Some people tank mmr for different reasons. For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons. Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill. Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance.
We're getting way off topic now, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what exactly a matchmaker does. SC2's matchmaker was a more manual precursor to today's modern matchmakers which are powered by machine learning. Today's matchmakers can estimate your skill level based on a variety of statistics from a single game. SC2 took the most conservative possible route and uses game outcomes exclusively, just like the older systems you prefer (and that's the method I've decided to employ in ShieldBattery as well). That means SC2 only knows what each player's rating was before the match began, what the outcome was, and uses that to update the ratings for each player. It's very simple, very cut-and-dry.
A matchmaker's sole purpose is to provide the fairest, fastest, highest quality matches to players in the queue. If you are trying your hardest in every game, and you manage to reach Grandmaster, then your true skill level is Grandmaster. The matchmaker is not going to know whether you're half-assing a game, or playing a gimmick, or cheesing, and in fact it doesn't care what you do. You lost? Your skill rating must be lower than it previously estimated, so it falls. The arbitrary matchmaking ratings only function in the context of the distance between them, meaning if you are 4000 MMR then you will win 7/10 games against a 3700 MMR player and win 3/10 games against a 4300 MMR player. But those ratings are inherently unreliable when the player's behavior is unpredictable. You admit to gaming the system but then complain that it's not your job to make the system work because it should be working for you, however you neglect to realize that your actions directly inform the matchmaker about your ability.
SC2 also introduced divergent MMRs for each race, as well as separate Unranked MMRs for each race. Furthermore, the Unranked and Ranked pools are merged. That means there was really no reason for you to choose to sabotage your rank at all. In fact, many players choose to use Unranked as a "playground" option to mess around or innovate, and they effectively define a "tryhard" Ranked MMR and a "fun" Unranked MMR for themselves which is several standard deviations lower. This helps the matchmaker provide games that are more predictable in quality depending on your mood.
You like to put the onus of matchmaking accuracy solely on the SC2 developers, when in reality any of the classic systems you professed to enjoy (WGT, PGT, etc) would have (and in fact, were) been impacted negatively in exactly the same way when faced with manipulative behavior. A 2000 WGT player dropping down to 1500 to "try something out" would be playing against 1500-level competition, ruining the experiences of legitimate 1500 players to face your perceived-1500 suboptimal skill level.
|
On July 09 2021 08:01 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2021 10:25 ReachTheSky wrote:On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote:
Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate. Some people tank mmr for different reasons. For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons. Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill. Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance. We're getting way off topic now, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what exactly a matchmaker does. SC2's matchmaker was a more manual precursor to today's modern matchmakers which are powered by machine learning. Today's matchmakers can estimate your skill level based on a variety of statistics from a single game. SC2 took the most conservative possible route and uses game outcomes exclusively, just like the older systems you prefer (and that's the method I've decided to employ in ShieldBattery as well). That means SC2 only knows what each player's rating was before the match began, what the outcome was, and uses that to update the ratings for each player. It's very simple, very cut-and-dry. A matchmaker's sole purpose is to provide the fairest, fastest, highest quality matches to players in the queue. If you are trying your hardest in every game, and you manage to reach Grandmaster, then your true skill level is Grandmaster. The matchmaker is not going to know whether you're half-assing a game, or playing a gimmick, or cheesing, and in fact it doesn't care what you do. You lost? Your skill rating must be lower than it previously estimated, so it falls. The arbitrary matchmaking ratings only function in the context of the distance between them, meaning if you are 4000 MMR then you will win 7/10 games against a 3700 MMR player and win 3/10 games against a 4300 MMR player. But those ratings are inherently unreliable when the player's behavior is unpredictable. You admit to gaming the system but then complain that it's not your job to make the system work because it should be working for you, however you neglect to realize that your actions directly inform the matchmaker about your ability. SC2 also introduced divergent MMRs for each race, as well as separate Unranked MMRs for each race. Furthermore, the Unranked and Ranked pools are merged. That means there was really no reason for you to choose to sabotage your rank at all. In fact, many players choose to use Unranked as a "playground" option to mess around or innovate, and they effectively define a "tryhard" Ranked MMR and a "fun" Unranked MMR for themselves which is several standard deviations lower. This helps the matchmaker provide games that are more predictable in quality depending on your mood. You like to put the onus of matchmaking accuracy solely on the SC2 developers, when in reality any of the classic systems you professed to enjoy (WGT, PGT, etc) would have (and in fact, were) been impacted negatively in exactly the same way when faced with manipulative behavior. A 2000 WGT player dropping down to 1500 to "try something out" would be playing against 1500-level competition, ruining the experiences of legitimate 1500 players to face your perceived-1500 suboptimal skill level.
I agree we are getting off topic, but since you decided to response i feel compelled to do the same since you do bring up something that should be addressed and it wouldn't be fair for me to say the sc2 algorithm/mmr systems flat out sucks unless i explained why. I'll start off by saying the mmr system is extremely bad. Constantly getting matched with someone either 700 mmr below you or 700 mmr above you is a clear indication the system does not work as intended. It needs an overhaul. When I watched a stream and see a streamer get paired with someone 1400! mmr above him, the system is clearly not working. Again, i respect that you want to defend it but it has MORE problems than old systems. At least with old systems, if we knew someone was a hacker, we weren't forced to play them, we could just reject a match without any penalty at all. At least with old systems you had the option of picking and choosing who you play as well as what race you play vs. If we wanted to we could play someone lower or even higher provided both parties agreed. It was on demand. Players have zero control in choosing whether or not they want to play vs someone better than them or if they are fine with accepting an opponent that is technically lower skill than them when it comes to the new system, This is bad for players because it actually limits player options. Players like options. New systems is not versatile and a good portion of time the system isn't even working as intended. Wgtour/Pgtour/old bw ladder systems actually worked better for the players, these new systems are just straight up bad and could very well be a contributing factor as to why the sc2 playerbase is what it is today. There is really no downside to the old systems while these new systems are less player friendly and don't work on a consistent basis
Additionally, since this is a thread about a new rts game coming out, i'm sure it would be more beneficial for this feedback to be out on the internet than not as the new rts devs certainly have the potential to read this, especially since DK has been known to follow tlnet closely in the past.
Final edit: Yeah their matchmaking system is god awful, I just got paired vs someone 1700 points higher than me in a ranked que. Literally, 1700 points higher.
|
A machine learning system that takes into account more than winning and losing in order to handle the matchmaking would be great of course.
It could take into account factors such as highest achieved stable MMR in the last 3 months, screens per minute, EPM, game length, number of opponent units killed etc. Basically it would be much harder to smurf since you will not get easier opponents until you play consistently worse in every way imaginable.
|
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower.
A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2.
SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level.
|
On July 09 2021 23:28 MockHamill wrote:
A machine learning system that takes into account more than winning and losing in order to handle the matchmaking would be great of course.
It could take into account factors such as highest achieved stable MMR in the last 3 months, screens per minute, EPM, game length, number of opponent units killed etc. Basically it would be much harder to smurf since you will not get easier opponents until you play consistently worse in every way imaginable.
not even mentioning how terrible it would be to include things in the MMR that have nothing to do with skill level I don't see the point at all because it's much easier for smurfers anyway to just create a new account for it
|
Northern Ireland23611 Posts
On July 09 2021 23:41 SirKibbleX wrote:Show nested quote +4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower.
A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2. SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level.
Indeed, I don’t think many will argue that BW is the harder game, but in larger engagements I think it still feels more fun and rewarding than SC2, for the reasons you outlined.
A moving just doesn’t feel all that satisfying, or fun. Least to me, games where I get a big advantage playing it out isn’t super fun for example. Games that are scrappy and weird with low unit numbers can be much more enjoyable.
Whatever the game’s mechanics or how it’s achieved, as a rule of thumb I feel the player should feel more powerful, with more they can do as the disembodied commander the more forces they have,
In SC2, to me anyway it feels like you go from being the commander of absolute elite special forces with advanced fighting doctrine in the early game, to being a general whose ordering men to advance and fire in the general direction of the enemy.
|
On July 10 2021 00:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2021 23:41 SirKibbleX wrote:4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower.
A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2. SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level. Indeed, I don’t think many will argue that BW is the harder game, but in larger engagements I think it still feels more fun and rewarding than SC2, for the reasons you outlined. A moving just doesn’t feel all that satisfying, or fun. Least to me, games where I get a big advantage playing it out isn’t super fun for example. Games that are scrappy and weird with low unit numbers can be much more enjoyable. Whatever the game’s mechanics or how it’s achieved, as a rule of thumb I feel the player should feel more powerful, with more they can do as the disembodied commander the more forces they have, In SC2, to me anyway it feels like you go from being the commander of absolute elite special forces with advanced fighting doctrine in the early game, to being a general whose ordering men to advance and fire in the general direction of the enemy.
Hm i honestly think this statement one sees a lot is overstated, while battles in bw are slower mostly due to the pathing, in a lot of ways it's very much a click vs a click with minimal micro, particularly because all the macro parts of the game are even more time consuming than in sc2.
Now yeah, there are fun micro tricks in it which are not in sc2, like say muta stacking and micro, or carrier micro, etc.
But compare some bio battle in sc2 to one in bw, it's night and day. Both games are largely about macro, and if anything, sc2 gives you more time to focus on micro of all sorts (now which ones are particularly satisfying depends largely on unit compositions).
With that in mind, i agree though that micro is probably one of the factors which should be a big difference in outcomes, as SirKibbleX said, the attention which gets freed by certain changes has to go somewhere. And in general it is the unit control which is the most satisfying in games, hell in mobas you basically do nothing else.
|
On July 01 2021 05:23 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player." I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it. I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
It's called warcraft 2, the person to get the most bloodlusted ogres generally won and nobody played human
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
