|
On April 17 2015 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 23:14 NasusAndDraven wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady.
Every niche will have it's superstars. All of them.
I'd never go fanboy over flash if I met him in person, but you'd bet your ass I'd go gags asking for an autograph if I bumped into Mark Rosewater, Mike Flores, and Brian Weissman--and those guys are in a game slower and less action packed than SC2.
However, statistical trends are not subjective. While football or futball or basketball are only subjectively more entertaining in a game per game basis, the population does tend to care more for those forms of entertainment than less action packed ones. Heck, look what happens during the Super Bowl or the World Cup versus what happens during an OSL even during BW days.
Those are the metrics a large company like Blizzard is trying to match. They don't care about how much a random website cares. They care about getting everyone caring. That means metrics, that means broad market samples, that means not making just you happy but making the total population happy. I dont if there is a single thing in your post that makes any sense. Let me be clear to you. Be it american or european football, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, etc. Their pace of action has absolutely nothing to do with their viewer popularity. The reason, the only reason, and for exactly zero other reasons, they are so popular on TV, is because they are so popular sports to play, and they were that way way way before television was even invented. Certainly much before there ever was the first ever televised sport match. Yeah blizzard is a large company. But blizzard is still about one thousand times too small company to aim for same viewerships as those other games have. Also there is the fact that a game that is owned by someone or some company will never or can ever reach same scale of popularity. Actually, yes, their pace of action has a lot to do with why they are popular. It's something people learn a few rules of and are able to run outside and just do. Where knowledge of the game matters less than just physically doing it until you actually start going professional with it. Are there maneuvers and mind games? Sure. Michael Jordan became the best basketball player of all time because of his fadeaway. But for 99.9% of those who play the games simply being faster or stronger is the only thing that matters. You don't need to study plays or memorize builds, you and your friends can just wing it and everything works out. The more serious you get, the more you put work on the mental but before then, all you need to do is run around and throw/kick/catch balls all day. The same can't be said of Go. Or of Magic the Gathering. Or of Monopoly. And hence why those aren't streamed daily.
Hearthstone. Streaming numbers up there behind the likes of League of Legends and Counterstrike, cerainly ahead of Starcraft most of the time. Even with a timer, control archetypes are often godawfully, agonizingly slow. Yet even a game where time is not a primary resource to manage has rush decks, even if hunters stress the player base more often than not. Zoolocks and mech mages balance against ramp druids and control paladins.
It's as easy to pick up as popular physical sports, and generally games played aren't going to be as tedious as those on stream. Yet streamers have made a market for slow and methodical gameplay (although every now and again they may mix in some rush decks for flavor). I can't see why Starcraft can't be an antithesis of this kind of niche: fast-paced gameplay with the option to slow things down if necessary.
Speed and pace are relative terms; everyone going at 60 miles per hour is effectively stationary relative to one another.
|
It's weird that HotS and LotV economy isn't causal friendly. Blizzard gives the impression that it's their core audience. First off the worker count gives the "causal" player the impression that 24 workers is maximum saturation however the causal player doesn't know that it's very inefficient. In a bw economy or w/o worker pairing mineral income scales better so that more workers equals more mineral income in a linear fashion. In such a system there isn't any arbitrary cap where adding more workers contributes to more mineral income but with a huge trade off in diminishing returns. In the eyes of the casual player such a economy makes more sense. Also there isn't any warning signs that pops out to notice the casual player when they exceed 16 workers per mineral line.
In the context of a RTS economic strength is as important as your army while the casual player is noticed that their army is under attack. They aren't noticed to keep their economy under balance due to the soft cap on workers per mineral line. You can then say that the current and proposed economic models are flawed and inherently anti casual. Going forward, what can Blizzard do? Either you treat the causal player like a casual and implement more pop up tool tips or a more sensible economic model.
|
On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple.
The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football.
And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on.
When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product.
|
On April 18 2015 02:14 Spect8rCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 17 2015 23:14 NasusAndDraven wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady.
Every niche will have it's superstars. All of them.
I'd never go fanboy over flash if I met him in person, but you'd bet your ass I'd go gags asking for an autograph if I bumped into Mark Rosewater, Mike Flores, and Brian Weissman--and those guys are in a game slower and less action packed than SC2.
However, statistical trends are not subjective. While football or futball or basketball are only subjectively more entertaining in a game per game basis, the population does tend to care more for those forms of entertainment than less action packed ones. Heck, look what happens during the Super Bowl or the World Cup versus what happens during an OSL even during BW days.
Those are the metrics a large company like Blizzard is trying to match. They don't care about how much a random website cares. They care about getting everyone caring. That means metrics, that means broad market samples, that means not making just you happy but making the total population happy. I dont if there is a single thing in your post that makes any sense. Let me be clear to you. Be it american or european football, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, etc. Their pace of action has absolutely nothing to do with their viewer popularity. The reason, the only reason, and for exactly zero other reasons, they are so popular on TV, is because they are so popular sports to play, and they were that way way way before television was even invented. Certainly much before there ever was the first ever televised sport match. Yeah blizzard is a large company. But blizzard is still about one thousand times too small company to aim for same viewerships as those other games have. Also there is the fact that a game that is owned by someone or some company will never or can ever reach same scale of popularity. Actually, yes, their pace of action has a lot to do with why they are popular. It's something people learn a few rules of and are able to run outside and just do. Where knowledge of the game matters less than just physically doing it until you actually start going professional with it. Are there maneuvers and mind games? Sure. Michael Jordan became the best basketball player of all time because of his fadeaway. But for 99.9% of those who play the games simply being faster or stronger is the only thing that matters. You don't need to study plays or memorize builds, you and your friends can just wing it and everything works out. The more serious you get, the more you put work on the mental but before then, all you need to do is run around and throw/kick/catch balls all day. The same can't be said of Go. Or of Magic the Gathering. Or of Monopoly. And hence why those aren't streamed daily. Hearthstone. Streaming numbers up there behind the likes of League of Legends and Counterstrike, cerainly ahead of Starcraft most of the time. Even with a timer, control archetypes are often godawfully, agonizingly slow. Yet even a game where time is not a primary resource to manage has rush decks, even if hunters stress the player base more often than not. Zoolocks and mech mages balance against ramp druids and control paladins. It's as easy to pick up as popular physical sports, and generally games played aren't going to be as tedious as those on stream. Yet streamers have made a market for slow and methodical gameplay (although every now and again they may mix in some rush decks for flavor). I can't see why Starcraft can't be an antithesis of this kind of niche: fast-paced gameplay with the option to slow things down if necessary. Speed and pace are relative terms; everyone going at 60 miles per hour is effectively stationary relative to one another.
Hearthstone is actually perfect for streaming.
Simplified economy.
Action starts turn one onward. People see your hand. The board is simple, a line is drawn with enemy on one side and your troops on the other. Each turn you attack or don't attack and it's transparent why without knowing anything about te game.
Great esport design.
|
On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore. Your initial argument was that the game needs to be fast paced, and now you're making a comparison to the super bowl. American football and baseball are huge sports, but mindnumbingly slow, so I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument. You also say the game must be easy for new people to pick up, which a stressful game is not.
Also being completely US-centric with your reasoning is a bad idea when the basis for the sport is found in South Korea, with major competitions in Europe.
|
On April 18 2015 03:05 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product. I have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore. Your initial argument was that the game needs to be fast paced, and now you're making a comparison to the super bowl. American football and baseball are huge sports, but mindnumbingly slow, so I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument. You also say the game must be easy for new people to pick up, which a stressful game is not. Also being completely US-centric with your reasoning is a bad idea when the basis for the sport is found in South Korea, with major competitions in Europe.
I was not making a point. I was answering honeybadgers question about why no one likes the slow paced defensive games. And I told the truth that's the difference between viewer experience and player experience with football vs chess as the example.
You are the one gettin stuck on how American or unamerican the examples should be.
Baseball and football are great sports since they stop the game, focus on an action point, then let you watch the action. They then play commercials during te boring parts for people to leave and do things because those parts are irrelevant to the game. Very good for the viewer. Simplified, action focused, with only what's in front of you that matters.
As opposed to chess where the action is mostly mental and hence invisible to someone just passing by who has never played chess. Soccer is the same way. You can just stare at the ball an not the players and without knowing anything about the game you can tell if someone I winning or not. Not so when you have a 30 minute 3base stall of siege units like Swarmhosts.
|
On April 18 2015 03:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 03:05 sushiman wrote:On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product. I have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore. Your initial argument was that the game needs to be fast paced, and now you're making a comparison to the super bowl. American football and baseball are huge sports, but mindnumbingly slow, so I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument. You also say the game must be easy for new people to pick up, which a stressful game is not. Also being completely US-centric with your reasoning is a bad idea when the basis for the sport is found in South Korea, with major competitions in Europe. I was not making a point. I was answering honeybadgers question about why no one likes the slow paced defensive games. And I told the truth that's the difference between viewer experience and player experience with football vs chess as the example. You are the one gettin stuck on how American or unamerican the examples should be. Baseball and football are great sports since they stop the game, focus on an action point, then let you watch the action. They then play commercials during te boring parts for people to leave and do things because those parts are irrelevant to the game. Very good for the viewer. Simplified, action focused, with only what's in front of you that matters. As opposed to chess where the action is mostly mental and hence invisible to someone just passing by who has never played chess. Soccer is the same way. You can just stare at the ball an not the players and without knowing anything about the game you can tell if someone I winning or not. Not so when you have a 30 minute 3base stall of siege units like Swarmhosts.
You have yet to prove that people don't like slow paced games, and your comparisons have been using american sport celebrities and sports as analogies in all your posts so far, I don't think my observation was faulty regarding that.
If your idea of a good sport viewing experience is to "play commercials during the boring parts", I really don't know what to say anymore, that's just absurd. Your highly personal idea that viewers don't like longer strategic games is built on nothing but how US TV channels presents their sports, and that type of presenting is made with advertisement in mind, not viewer preferences.
|
On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product.
110+ million is pretty good but that doesn't mean the Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. In North America yes, but that isn't true for the World. Anyway, I get where you wanted to go with that. In either case, I think the both of you are going overboard with the examples to make a point.
At the end of the day, we know the target audience and those numbers have been steady for quite some time. As for having a million viewers for a show. I don't know fella. That depends on how many people actually get it let alone where it's featured.
For example, in Canada getting a few million people tuning in to a show/event live on prime time television and a national network is viewed as pretty good. Everywhere is going to be a little different. Let's not be ignorant.
On April 18 2015 10:49 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 03:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2015 03:05 sushiman wrote:On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product. I have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore. Your initial argument was that the game needs to be fast paced, and now you're making a comparison to the super bowl. American football and baseball are huge sports, but mindnumbingly slow, so I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument. You also say the game must be easy for new people to pick up, which a stressful game is not. Also being completely US-centric with your reasoning is a bad idea when the basis for the sport is found in South Korea, with major competitions in Europe. I was not making a point. I was answering honeybadgers question about why no one likes the slow paced defensive games. And I told the truth that's the difference between viewer experience and player experience with football vs chess as the example. You are the one gettin stuck on how American or unamerican the examples should be. Baseball and football are great sports since they stop the game, focus on an action point, then let you watch the action. They then play commercials during te boring parts for people to leave and do things because those parts are irrelevant to the game. Very good for the viewer. Simplified, action focused, with only what's in front of you that matters. As opposed to chess where the action is mostly mental and hence invisible to someone just passing by who has never played chess. Soccer is the same way. You can just stare at the ball an not the players and without knowing anything about the game you can tell if someone I winning or not. Not so when you have a 30 minute 3base stall of siege units like Swarmhosts. You have yet to prove that people don't like slow paced games, and your comparisons have been using american sport celebrities and sports as analogies in all your posts so far, I don't think my observation was faulty regarding that. If your idea of a good sport viewing experience is to "play commercials during the boring parts", I really don't know what to say anymore, that's just absurd. Your highly personal idea that viewers don't like longer strategic games is built on nothing but how US TV channels presents their sports, and that type of presenting is made with advertisement in mind, not viewer preferences.
The only reason I would watch the Super Bowl (and I haven't for sometime-- not into American Football, but I am in a lot of other sports) is for the commercials. Why do I watch the commercials? Because it used to be my business, companies are throwing big dollars at the spots and for the most part the commercials are ridiculous. Yeah, the Super Bowl isn't the greatest example. Who hasn't heard someone else say, "I watch it to see the commercials." It's a completely different cup of tea.
|
I think the gist of the argument is that, while people may differ in opinion on immobile styles, people generally don't like stalemates. We can see this with the current (err, recent) cast of siege units. People have been lukewarm about tanks since forever, especially since they provide a great contrasting dynamic in TvT. People are not keen on the (old) swarm host, as it doesn't help the Zerg win so much that it helps them not die; it became another crutch, a different sort of brood lord/infestor. The tempest falls somewhere between the two; it's not well-liked, as in terms of action it functions without fanfare, but it does serve to curb the laser wars of PvP, if at least somewhat.
People like it when players try to abuse siege tanks' splash damage using clever drop play or infested terrans. Even the Protoss deathball provides some sort of immobility that makes for potential back-and-forth, even if it feels like a very crude way to play the race. Immobility serves as a way to highlight the benefits of fast units, and this is most evident in the most immobile thing in every races' arsenal: their infrastructure.
People don't like tanks firing at locusts. They don't like infinite PDDs absorbing tons of locust shots. They don't like the methodical manner in which Protoss tries to clean up a spore crawler or two with several tempests, only for two more to take its place, followed by a set of storms to deter the invading swarm.
Immobility has its place. Stalemating does not. And I think it's possible to distinguish the two sufficiently as to make immobile playstyles a viable choice and strategy.
|
On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football.
In america. Worldwide, lots of things crush it. The world cup for example. Top Gear (RIP) with 350 million viewers in 170 countries.
I think you really need to take a second glance at your argument, because it's really getting stretched thin, and isn't holding water. Analogies can only go so far. The fact is that long games are not necessarily dry, and in fact, I rarely see a pro game at the "Stalemate" portion that is tedious in the least.
The problem I think is that the swarm host exists. There shouldn't be a seige tank for every race. The seige tank should be a very unique space control unit that only one race can use, thus contributing to the game's asymmetry.
|
the real problem is brood war was all about zone control and individual groups of units could control zones effectively
now leaving units in small groups = free gifts to their deathball
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 18 2015 03:05 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2015 02:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2015 00:49 Honeybadger wrote:On April 17 2015 22:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Let's do a poll on who gets more love, Flash vs Tom Brady. Maybe a bad choice when brady is loathed by so, so many :D Also because the pats did just basically hire a murderer. And lastly, there have been starleague events in korea with more people viewing than have ever watched a superbowl. Brood war was a SPORT in korea. Does the USAF have a professional football team? no? because of Boxer, the korean air force has a starcraft team. You can't compare the way YOU view a video game to the way YOU view a sport. You have to compare how YOU view a sport with how the KOREANS view the video game. It's a sport to them, pure and simple. The Super Bowl is the most watched event on television. Literally nothing is more watched than the big game in football. And World Cup? Nations offer up their entire fucking country, literally changing how multiple cities function just for a fucking soccer match. Air Force has an sc team? Until countries shut down for your championship events you don't have much to stand on. When American TV shows only have several million people watching it a week it commits seppuku from shame. That's called a bad tv show. The numbers esports has wouldn't even be considered a good commercial let alone a good product. I have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore. Your initial argument was that the game needs to be fast paced, and now you're making a comparison to the super bowl. American football and baseball are huge sports, but mindnumbingly slow, so I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument. You also say the game must be easy for new people to pick up, which a stressful game is not. Also being completely US-centric with your reasoning is a bad idea when the basis for the sport is found in South Korea, with major competitions in Europe.
I'd have to agree with you here. First he makes that argument that no matter how fast the game speeds up, there will always be multiple playstyles that are dissimilar and markedly different -- that strategic diversity is just as wide in a game of speed chess as regular chess. Then he goes on to argue against turtle playstyles (a distinct playstyle which he insists is unchanged by contraction of time):
On April 17 2015 13:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 12:47 Honeybadger wrote:
why the hell do people dislike long, drawn out defensive games with a lot of smaller skirmishes that winds up dwindling down in economy to seriously intense micro-for-your-life play as each player just barely squeaks ahead for the lead. Sure they can be rough to play but personally, I like being rewarded for my tactical choices throughout the game coming to fruition at the finale. I've always been a turtler and love the feeling of my opponent bashing himself upon my indestructible army, even if he has the economic advantage, my positioning and composition are just too tough to break. Bases can be a struggle to take, but I like that I'm not punished for carefully and slowly spreading my forces to the next point.
Planetary fortress/forward turrets used to zone the battlefield in your favor are something that is really missing from the game. It's a role that tanks have failed to do since blizzard decided to knock the damage down from 70.
those game are the most tense to me. I don't know why people insist every game be action packed and hyper aggressive. I really dislike games that never get past the midgame tech and army wise as the norm. viewer vs player distinction. Long drawn out defensive games where the battle is mostly in the mind is boring to people who don't play. For the same reasons they don't have MONDAY NIGHT CHESS and have MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL instead (in the states)
Is it really the viewers who dislike turtle games? Is it just you?
Either way, this goes directly back to TheDwf's argument: Blizzard's emphasis on the viewer has lasting effects on the players of the game, including a dwindling pool of strategic diversity, and an over-emphasis on aggressive play. Changes directed towards hyper aggression will result in a chaotic atmosphere with a contraction of time that forces players to play purely based on reaction and intuition and less on critical thinking.
All of this stems from difficulties with unit interactions (hard counter vs hard counter units and the "Terrible Terrible Damage" factor) as well as hyper economies which reach fruition at a max of few nodes. Pushing the game to develop even faster with the half patch approach as well as 12 worker start only exacerbates the problem of players running out of time to make rational decisions.
On April 18 2015 03:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
As opposed to chess where the action is mostly mental and hence invisible to someone just passing by who has never played chess. Soccer is the same way. You can just stare at the ball an not the players and without knowing anything about the game you can tell if someone I winning or not. Not so when you have a 30 minute 3base stall of siege units like Swarmhosts.
Do you want to know how to make this clear? Base counts. In SC2 currently, a person with 6 mining bases has pretty much the same income as someone on 3 bases, and either side can really be the victor, as long as one player manages to get a good engagement.
Not so in BW (this is not a nostalgia argument, this is argument based off of something that obviously works). In BW, you could count the bases and see how each player was trying to take over territory. It was much more like Risk, where zoning and territorial battles mattered, not the luck your one oracle got at 7:00 or whether you were able to successfully win with a "timing attack" (which in SC2 is no longer measured on finding chinks in your opponent's armor but rather by what upgrade YOU finished -- you might as well be playing against a computer at that point).
With a proper mining system that incentivizes taking bases (as well as a slowed down pacing of tech), SC2 could very well be measured in metrics of bases vs bases, and the spectator would quite enjoy the game just as much as any major sports game.
If this isn't enough evidence, I can also point to MOBAs like Dota 2 and League of Legends, which are enormously successful right now, and rely heavily on map presence (double sightstone is currently in heavy use in LCS right now) to gain ground and take down turrets or grab objectives when the enemy is out of place. These are rational choices played on top of intense, twitch-based skill mechanics on the basis of individual heroes/champions. Matches typically last 30 minutes to over an hour, so the game length is obviously not the problem. The pool of strategic diversity is wide, and "turtling" (say, no one leaving their towers unguarded ever to get objectives or support other lanes) is impossible due to territorial aspects (and objectives) which require players to shift emphasis to different parts of the map.
Obviously these are different genres altogether (though we could assume a SC2 player could very easily control 5 units versus 5 units of another player in similar fashion), but that doesn't mean that we can't pull from what is successful; territorial space control is something that's severely lacking in SC2. Without the ability to choose a wide array of strategies, we're essentially playing a very fast paced game of Pong at this point.
|
On April 19 2015 06:30 SC2John wrote:
Without the ability to choose a wide array of strategies, we're essentially playing a very fast paced game of Pong at this point.
When David Kim started to repeat some community ideas about promoting aggression and harassment I thought that was very suspicious. It's a trivial task to create a game which heavily includes those two aspects, simply by buffing mutalisks and medivacs and by forcing you to take more expansions by having existing ones run out. But a game like this becomes Pong or Whack-a-Mole, the victory of mechanics over strategy because your choices are predetermined (you have to build these units to do this action, you have to expand at this point in time). It's not necessarily an improvement over Wings of Liberty, as developing a great game is more difficult than just catering to simplistic viewer demands for more action.
|
On the topic of the economy that Blizzard is currently electing to use, I have to wonder how well it'll hold up in the long term.
After all, 3-base economics weren't always standard, they became standard after 1-base plays and after that 2-base plays. It was a natural gravitation towards a macro-oriented game that was in part pressured by players who settled on maps created by mapmakers and supported by Blizzard to become a 3-base standard.
The three-quarters mineral-per-base and twelve starting workers certainly kickstart the midgame much earlier than before. Base importance has made the game more frenetic. But say that the meta smooths out, that the early game timings have been dissected to the point that they're probabilistically survivable. What happens then? Will games normalize to the macro styles that we currently see (albeit with less deathball syndrome, hopefully)? If so, will players begin to demand maps that offer enough bases or minerals to max out armies? Conversely, if a certain attack becomes too powerful, will we restrict maps similar to what was done against blink?
I suppose the doubt in my mind is: might this economy be merely "refreshing" the goalpost? I'm not saying this with regard to the other economies proposed; I say this in relation to the HotS economy and what Blizzard hopes to achieve in LotV.
Of course, it's very early into the beta and even simple timings haven't been fleshed out yet, but because we've seen a lot of small skirmish games and not many attempts at a traditional macro, take-all-the-bases kind of games, it's a valid concern that might not be picked up in the early stages (similar to how the swarm host stalemate dilemma didn't appear that evident until after HotS was released, culminating in Mana vs. Firecake as one of the more infamous examples).
|
On April 20 2015 14:22 Spect8rCraft wrote:
On the topic of the economy that Blizzard is currently electing to use, I have to wonder how well it'll hold up in the long term.
After all, 3-base economics weren't always standard, they became standard after 1-base plays and after that 2-base plays. It was a natural gravitation towards a macro-oriented game that was in part pressured by players who settled on maps created by mapmakers and supported by Blizzard to become a 3-base standard.
The three-quarters mineral-per-base and twelve starting workers certainly kickstart the midgame much earlier than before. Base importance has made the game more frenetic. But say that the meta smooths out, that the early game timings have been dissected to the point that they're probabilistically survivable. What happens then? Will games normalize to the macro styles that we currently see (albeit with less deathball syndrome, hopefully)? If so, will players begin to demand maps that offer enough bases or minerals to max out armies? Conversely, if a certain attack becomes too powerful, will we restrict maps similar to what was done against blink?
I suppose the doubt in my mind is: might this economy be merely "refreshing" the goalpost? I'm not saying this with regard to the other economies proposed; I say this in relation to the HotS economy and what Blizzard hopes to achieve in LotV.
Of course, it's very early into the beta and even simple timings haven't been fleshed out yet, but because we've seen a lot of small skirmish games and not many attempts at a traditional macro, take-all-the-bases kind of games, it's a valid concern that might not be picked up in the early stages (similar to how the swarm host stalemate dilemma didn't appear that evident until after HotS was released, culminating in Mana vs. Firecake as one of the more infamous examples).
The timings will change and normalize.
Number will be changed accordingly.
Some units will be used more than others.
And people will end up feeling the exact same about the game as they did before LotV.
Instead of 3base, it will be 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever.
Instead of Swarmhosts it will be, whatever that people complain about.
The same thing will happen no matter what they do to the economy since it will still be the same/similar unit interactions that they've been complaining about since WoL.
They will try to forget that when econ was low and you were rewarded for getting bases in WoL, that people were unhappy.
They will try to forget that when econ was stable and they got quick 3bases in HotS, that people were unhappy.
They will forget that even with the constant aggression in WoL, that people were unhappy.
They will forget that even with the massive amounts of turtle play in HotS, that people were unhappy.
They will realize that the econ is arbitrary and that what's wrong has nothing to do with how quickly the game starts or how many bases the players have, or how easy it is to attack, or how easy it is to defend.
They will realize that arbitrary background numbers are just fucking arbitrary numbers and making it so you watch marines vs zerglings fighitng in the late game (instead of early game), or in the early game (instead of the late game) leads to the same feelings no matter what the economy looks like.
They will realize that it doesn't matter if there was 2 bases or 12 bases that colossus will not suddenly become more exciting to watch shoot lasers at roaches.
They will realize that a timing push off 2base2, 3base2, or 6bases all look fucking the same once they hit the front door.
They will realize that arguing so much about how many minerals a worker picks up is literally wasting your time.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 20 2015 14:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 14:22 Spect8rCraft wrote:
On the topic of the economy that Blizzard is currently electing to use, I have to wonder how well it'll hold up in the long term.
After all, 3-base economics weren't always standard, they became standard after 1-base plays and after that 2-base plays. It was a natural gravitation towards a macro-oriented game that was in part pressured by players who settled on maps created by mapmakers and supported by Blizzard to become a 3-base standard.
The three-quarters mineral-per-base and twelve starting workers certainly kickstart the midgame much earlier than before. Base importance has made the game more frenetic. But say that the meta smooths out, that the early game timings have been dissected to the point that they're probabilistically survivable. What happens then? Will games normalize to the macro styles that we currently see (albeit with less deathball syndrome, hopefully)? If so, will players begin to demand maps that offer enough bases or minerals to max out armies? Conversely, if a certain attack becomes too powerful, will we restrict maps similar to what was done against blink?
I suppose the doubt in my mind is: might this economy be merely "refreshing" the goalpost? I'm not saying this with regard to the other economies proposed; I say this in relation to the HotS economy and what Blizzard hopes to achieve in LotV.
Of course, it's very early into the beta and even simple timings haven't been fleshed out yet, but because we've seen a lot of small skirmish games and not many attempts at a traditional macro, take-all-the-bases kind of games, it's a valid concern that might not be picked up in the early stages (similar to how the swarm host stalemate dilemma didn't appear that evident until after HotS was released, culminating in Mana vs. Firecake as one of the more infamous examples). The timings will change and normalize. Number will be changed accordingly. Some units will be used more than others. And people will end up feeling the exact same about the game as they did before LotV. Instead of 3base, it will be 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever. Instead of Swarmhosts it will be, whatever that people complain about. The same thing will happen no matter what they do to the economy since it will still be the same/similar unit interactions that they've been complaining about since WoL. They will try to forget that when econ was low and you were rewarded for getting bases in WoL, that people were unhappy. They will try to forget that when econ was stable and they got quick 3bases in HotS, that people were unhappy. They will forget that even with the constant aggression in WoL, that people were unhappy. They will forget that even with the massive amounts of turtle play in HotS, that people were unhappy. They will realize that the econ is arbitrary and that what's wrong has nothing to do with how quickly the game starts or how many bases the players have, or how easy it is to attack, or how easy it is to defend. They will realize that arbitrary background numbers are just fucking arbitrary numbers and making it so you watch marines vs zerglings fighitng in the late game (instead of early game), or in the early game (instead of the late game) leads to the same feelings no matter what the economy looks like. They will realize that it doesn't matter if there was 2 bases or 12 bases that colossus will not suddenly become more exciting to watch shoot lasers at roaches. They will realize that a timing push off 2base2, 3base2, or 6bases all look fucking the same once they hit the front door. They will realize that arguing so much about how many minerals a worker picks up is literally wasting your time.
This is the best, most thought provoking post I've ever read on TL.
I jest, it's a bunch of disorganized ideas organized into a rant with no cohesive thought.
Your entire argument seems to be centered around the idea that economy has no place in the game and has nothing to do with the way the game is balanced or how players play it -- quite the opposite mindset from most of the people here. I simply have to disagree with you, though, because I think the only time economy isn't important is when you have point and click armies and the game is not about base management (which is pretty much the state of current SC2).
Whenever we look back at Brood War and talk about the things that work, we may be a bit nostalgic. We may miss the reaver. But mostly, we're drawing on something that worked. More than one person has been alienated by the lack of strategic diversity and control in SC2; player numbers have dwindled into mere nothings after the initial release of the game (compare to other, far more successful games), and multiple pros have retired in SC2 by citing a "lack of passion". It's not that Blizzard is trying really hard to make a good game, and we're just being ungrateful bitches and whining about everything. We're trying to find something that works. BW gives us an excellent design for RTS gaming, especially because it (rather accidentally) found the perfect balance between space control and game pacing. Almost every long-term macro game in BW can be measured in bases; you can actually tell who is winning based on how much of the map they own. The basis of BW, before unit design, wonky AI, and cool micro tricks, is the fact that it is all about base management.
SC2 is not. No matter how we balance numbers or attempt to displace timings, we can never make SC2 function like BW; we can never make it about base management. I don't deny that certain elements such as redundancy and hard counters factor into the overall problem, but economy is a key aspect that has been overlooked throughout much of SC2. Starbow (though it never gained traction) was an attempt to return to BW design concepts, including changing the way harvesters mined; like BW, it changes the game wildly and puts a strong emphasis on base management and expanding. This is not the first and only example of economy changes that were indeed successful in providing an experience where economy mattered. Since then, we've built on many other ideas and community projects to try and create something better than what we know from Blizzard's SC2 -- something less frustrating and more dynamic.
So I'm just nostalgic for BW, right? I just don't want to accept SC2 as a different game, right?
No, I don't, because it's boring now, despite Blizzard's attempts to make it "Fast-paced and exciting". It's a "real time base builder" game. I have no options, I have no control; I'm stuck refining mechanics and timings that require little to no thought other than execution. So yeah, maybe we're all a little nostalgic. Maybe we complain about SC2. But that's because it doesn't work and it could be a whole lot better.
|
On April 19 2015 17:46 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 06:30 SC2John wrote:
Without the ability to choose a wide array of strategies, we're essentially playing a very fast paced game of Pong at this point.
When David Kim started to repeat some community ideas about promoting aggression and harassment I thought that was very suspicious. It's a trivial task to create a game which heavily includes those two aspects, simply by buffing mutalisks and medivacs and by forcing you to take more expansions by having existing ones run out. But a game like this becomes Pong or Whack-a-Mole, the victory of mechanics over strategy because your choices are predetermined (you have to build these units to do this action, you have to expand at this point in time). It's not necessarily an improvement over Wings of Liberty, as developing a great game is more difficult than just catering to simplistic viewer demands for more action.
I just really don't feel this at all when I'm playing a game though. Everyone seems to state this 'no strategy' thing like it's fact, but in the average ladder game I would be making multiple important strategic decisions every minute based off of scouting information - where to put my army, whether to focus on expanding or gear up for a timing push, deciding whether to play offensively or defensively, when to tech up. The best players in the world are not only mechanical gods, they're extremely good at deciding all these little things based off very small amounts of information.
Try playing a game of starcraft in front of somebody new to the game and explain all of your decisions. I think you'll be surprised how many there are, even for something largely brain-dead like a two gate rush (when do i send my probe out, where do I place gateways, do I wait for 3 zealots before attacking, should I stop attacking and just probe up at home, all strategy and not mechanics).
Now it's certainly a different question whether or not all this strategic diversity should be made more available for the average player. However, strategy is a far larger part of this game than a lot of people would have you believe. Sure, a lot of this strategy is copied from pro players, but in what way is that not still 'strategy'. I can't see any way to design a game where this wouldn't be the case.
|
Changes directed towards hyper aggression will result in a chaotic atmosphere with a contraction of time that forces players to play purely based on reaction and intuition and less on critical thinking.
I can't help after reading your post, that you make wrong assumptions, so let me try and clear it up:
Not action packed =/ Strategy and critical thinking further rewarded.
Actionpacked game =/ Cannot reward strategy
LOTV economy =/ Cannot have more strategy in it.
Viewerfriendly esport game =/ Cannot be fun to play.
Viewerfriendly esport game =/ Doesn't have to be extremely unforgiving.
LOL and CS = Rewards reactions and intuitons = Heavily played and watched.
All of this stems from difficulties with unit interactions (hard counter vs hard counter units and the "Terrible Terrible Damage" factor) as well as hyper economies which reach fruition at a max of few nodes.
What does Terrible Terrible damage acutally mean?
When 10 Speedlings in BW kills a nexus in 10 seconds--> Terrible terrible damage?
- When Vultures places Spider Mines close to Dragoons --> Protoss looks away for 1 second --> Dragoons dies to Mines --> Vultures run into protoss base to kill workers w/ their 5.5 movement speed --> No way of saving probes for the protoss player --> Terrible terrible damage?
- When a Disruptor moves into the enemy army and the enemy has multiple second to split his army --> Few units are attacking each other in this proces --> Duration of battle increased --> Terrible terrible damage???
Do you have any defitions of the terms you use and can you explain why they weren't problems in BW and why they are problems in Sc2? And why reaction of time suddenly is a bad thing, when it has been a major part of all succesful popular games for many years now.
My opinion
BW economy = Good due to the incentives it creates. But if you think that a change in economy suddenly is gonna reward strategical chest-level of thinking your kidding your self. And if you think that there is no way to reward while staying with the LOTV-economy you lack creativity.
Hard counters = Micro isn't a determining factor in the outcome and instead unit X always beat unit Y, typically in both mobility and cost efficiency = Bad
Countermicro = Good
Contraction of time = A catchphrase pepole use who fails to understand that proper speed must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in relation to other relevant factors. There is no proof that Sc2 is too fast or too slow on a general basis.
Terrrible terrible damage= A term people mistakenly uses where the main issue is deathball and lack of counterplay. Battles in Sc2 could indeed last longer, but that should mainly be rewarded by making players move around with their units during engagements rather than standing still and amoving.
Deathball = A term that should be used on armies where the optimal decision is to turtle and never split up the army. However, occationally it gets (mis)used on compositions that actually are aggressive as well. BW as an example wasn't that multitaskfocussed, but with alot of the compositions, you were rewarded for being aggressive on the map with the "ball".
|
On April 20 2015 15:54 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 17:46 Grumbels wrote:On April 19 2015 06:30 SC2John wrote:
Without the ability to choose a wide array of strategies, we're essentially playing a very fast paced game of Pong at this point.
When David Kim started to repeat some community ideas about promoting aggression and harassment I thought that was very suspicious. It's a trivial task to create a game which heavily includes those two aspects, simply by buffing mutalisks and medivacs and by forcing you to take more expansions by having existing ones run out. But a game like this becomes Pong or Whack-a-Mole, the victory of mechanics over strategy because your choices are predetermined (you have to build these units to do this action, you have to expand at this point in time). It's not necessarily an improvement over Wings of Liberty, as developing a great game is more difficult than just catering to simplistic viewer demands for more action. I just really don't feel this at all when I'm playing a game though. Everyone seems to state this 'no strategy' thing like it's fact, but in the average ladder game I would be making multiple important strategic decisions every minute based off of scouting information - where to put my army, whether to focus on expanding or gear up for a timing push, deciding whether to play offensively or defensively, when to tech up. The best players in the world are not only mechanical gods, they're extremely good at deciding all these little things based off very small amounts of information. Try playing a game of starcraft in front of somebody new to the game and explain all of your decisions. I think you'll be surprised how many there are, even for something largely brain-dead like a two gate rush (when do i send my probe out, where do I place gateways, do I wait for 3 zealots before attacking, should I stop attacking and just probe up at home, all strategy and not mechanics). Now it's certainly a different question whether or not all this strategic diversity should be made more available for the average player. However, strategy is a far larger part of this game than a lot of people would have you believe. Sure, a lot of this strategy is copied from pro players, but in what way is that not still 'strategy'. I can't see any way to design a game where this wouldn't be the case.
In my opinion, SC2 is one of the best RTS games released to date. I have played MANY and I can tell you that few are as smooth, as rewarding of practice, and are as watchable as SC2. Get on twitch right now and try watching other RTS lowbies play versus SC2 lowbies. It's not just game play skill, but even when you're watching Joe Schmoe try to do things, even when it's not American pro level good, it still looks entertaining.
But sadly, and I agree with this sentiment, it's not enough simply being one of the best RTS games. Saying you're more fun to watch than Age of Empires is not enough. There is a legacy at stake. There's a reason they picked this brand, this name, and are funding this much content. When you aim this deep into the stars you will not be happy only hitting trees.
So yes, there's a shit tonne of decision making. A shit tonne of impressive mechanics. And 90% of the time the economy works just fine, the balance works just fine. If we did not have publicized tournaments people wouldn't have even thought badly of most of SC2, WoL included.
But the benchmarks are high when you try to take up the Starcraft mantle. Expect the judgement, and expect the resistance. Not because the game is not good enough, but because your inclusion into the legacy is not good enough.
|
On April 20 2015 20:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Changes directed towards hyper aggression will result in a chaotic atmosphere with a contraction of time that forces players to play purely based on reaction and intuition and less on critical thinking.
I can't help after reading your post, that you make wrong assumptions continously. So let me try and clear it up: Not action packed =/ Strategy and critical thinking further rewarded. Actionpacked game =/ Cannot reward strategy Viewerfriendly esport game =/ Cannot be fun to play. Viewerfriendly esport game =/ Doesn't have to be extremely unforgiving. LOL and CS = Heavily played and watched. LOL and CS = Heavily rewards reactions and intuitons LOL and CS = Weren't designed around being viewerfriendly in the first place, but being entertaining to play.
I think you're the one missing his points.
He never said less action = strategy and critical thinking are more rewarded. He said the more time you give players to make decisions, the better those decisions will be. He compares regular chess to speed chess; in the latter, many more mistakes are made because you have less time to think about what is the correct decision. Seems reasonable to me.
He never said an action packed game cannot reward strategy. Allow me to clear up a misconception you seem to have; time contraction =/ action packed. Less time to make decisions directly leads to more unforced mistakes being made. Ergo games become 'chaotic'. (edit: The assumption here is that the more unforced mistakes are made, the less strategy matters. This is debatable I think.)
He never said anything about a viewer friendly game being unfun; he said that blizzard set out to create a viewer friendly game rather than a game that is entertaining to play. As a result, the game is neither. In fact, he was arguing exactly what you were in your final statement; the game should be designed to be entertaining to play first, and viewer friendly will happen naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
