EPTCommunity Feedback Update - July 17 - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
| ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
What. The. Fuck. How is this thinking possible? SC2, at it's heart, is a 1v1 game. It's a (fun) competitive game based on learning how the races and matchups and interactions work; the rest is extraneous. I'm not saying this because I believe 1v1 is the only way to play, but because the game has been marketed and branded this way since its inception, and it makes no sense to expect that the richest part of a player's experience is going to be building confidence to play a single NORMAL game of SC2. Even if I'm brand new to an RTS, my goal when downloading an RTS is to play an RTS. For example, if I download Minesweeper, I may not know the rules or how to play, but I can immediately jump into the game, learn little bits and pieces, and quickly master the game. If I download League of Legends, I can immediately jump into a blind pick game and begin learning the basics of how to play against real people without much stress. But in SC2, it's EXPECTED that I'll need to spend several days or weeks just building up enough knowledge and confidence to play a standard game of SC2? Why is the game so hard that a brand new player literally cannot play the game they downloaded? I appreciate the work towards creating a game that helps new players transition, and I especially appreciate these constant updates. But I personally think it's absolutely flawed that the game has such tight transitions and punishing mechanics that new players are expected to fail, get frustrated, and leave without some sort of alternative gaming safety net. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 18 2015 13:09 SC2John wrote: What. The. Fuck. How is this thinking possible? SC2, at it's heart, is a 1v1 game. It's a (fun) competitive game based on learning how the races and matchups and interactions work; the rest is extraneous. I'm not saying this because I believe 1v1 is the only way to play, but because the game has been marketed and branded this way since its inception, and it makes no sense to expect that the richest part of a player's experience is going to be building confidence to play a single NORMAL game of SC2. Even if I'm brand new to an RTS, my goal when downloading an RTS is to play an RTS. For example, if I download Minesweeper, I may not know the rules or how to play, but I can immediately jump into the game, learn little bits and pieces, and quickly master the game. If I download League of Legends, I can immediately jump into a blind pick game and begin learning the basics of how to play against real people without much stress. But in SC2, it's EXPECTED that I'll need to spend several days or weeks just building up enough knowledge and confidence to play a standard game of SC2? Why is the game so hard that a brand new player literally cannot play the game they downloaded? I appreciate the work towards creating a game that helps new players transition, and I especially appreciate these constant updates. But I personally think it's absolutely flawed that the game has such tight transitions and punishing mechanics that new players are expected to fail, get frustrated, and leave without some sort of alternative gaming safety net. Took me nearly three years to win a game of multiplayer in Brood War. Used to be, you play the campaign, learn how all the units work, maybe play against the AI, and then hop in. Now the campaign is too radically different, and the meta shifts all the time from what the AI is capable of (was true in BW as well), so you introduce steps to make it more fun. Team games (archonmode), then eventually work up the strength to 1v1. When I made the switch to SC2 and had no idea what I was doing anymore, I ended up being the same way. Start with team games, 2v2's and 4v4's, learning some builds, then hopping into 1v1 and starting my slog back to greatness. | ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
More action, less down time. - So you want new players to have 500apm ? or current players to double their apm ? why ? to increase carpel tunnel incidence ? More micro on both sides in engagements. - So you want new players to have 500apm ? or current players to double their apm ? why ? to increase carpel tunnel incidence ? There already is alot of micro. New ways to show off skill. - Design a better game, and the skill will show. If the game is about timings and worker killing, what room is there for 'showing off skill' , or is that already 'showing off skill' ? Clarify what you mean 'showing off skill'. Make the game more difficult for pros. - Why ? The game is 'difficult' enough, requiring hands to be replaced by cybernetic hands that dont tire is the goal ? Make the game more approachable to regular players through new features such as Archon Mode and Allied Commanders. - Sure, implement. Like yesterday. Thats all for now. Thanks for listening. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On July 18 2015 09:08 Musicus wrote: Making the game more difficult for pros does not mean it will be less fun for 99%. 90% will still suck and will be nowhere near the skill ceiling anyway, doesn't matter how hard the game is at the top. For the competitive scene this is a great idea imo. It could actually mean the return of Bonjwas, if a top pro is able to distinguish himself more from other pros than right now in HotS. They just have to be careful not to raise the skill floor too much, but they are aware of that. My complaint is that the "make the game more enjoyable" isn't on the list at all on all when it should be the main/most important of them all. How hard the game is for progamers is imo completely irrelevant. What matters for the esports-side is that the game is fun to watch. This can be created through great micro interactions and strategic diversity rather than forcing APM for the sake of APM. As an example of something unfun: Dying to an Oracle in the base because you only had 5 Marines instead of 6. David Kim on the other hand likes it because it "increases action". David Kim directly made the game less enjoyable when he reversed the ebay requirement for turrets. Instead, here is how I would write the goals. Main goal: More fun playing experience for the majority of the 1v1 playerbase: Sub goal: Make the game very enjoyable to watch. How to accomplish it: - Reduce the impact of having the wrong build order so the game becomes more forgiving without having super optimized build orders/scouting patterns. - Creating more micro interactions that rewards unit movement instead of button pressing for the sake of button pressing. - Get rid of the areas where the game gets overly complicated in terms of mechanics (e.g. control groups/too many units with abilities where it isn't needed). - Add more options in terms of playstyles where each playstyle plays out very differently (e.g. mobility based vs positionaly based). - Make all units and upgrades viable + they should have different advantages and disadvantages --> As few choices as possible are "must do's". - Minimize periods where nothing happens/getting rid of turtle playstyles where the army can't attack into you (note: this doesn't mean a positionally/defensive style shouldn't be possible, but it should contain more army trading). | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16686 Posts
On July 18 2015 13:09 SC2John wrote: What. The. Fuck. How is this thinking possible? i agree with Blizzard's thinking completely as far as how people flow into 1v1s. This is not new thinking. Sigaty has outlined this thinking many times during the development of WoL. i came from playing Campaign Mode Starcraft64 for the N64. most of the little group of noobs in my school started off this way as well... either N64 campaign or PC SC1 Campaign | ||
|
ETisME
12385 Posts
On July 18 2015 13:09 SC2John wrote: What. The. Fuck. How is this thinking possible? SC2, at it's heart, is a 1v1 game. It's a (fun) competitive game based on learning how the races and matchups and interactions work; the rest is extraneous. I'm not saying this because I believe 1v1 is the only way to play, but because the game has been marketed and branded this way since its inception, and it makes no sense to expect that the richest part of a player's experience is going to be building confidence to play a single NORMAL game of SC2. Even if I'm brand new to an RTS, my goal when downloading an RTS is to play an RTS. For example, if I download Minesweeper, I may not know the rules or how to play, but I can immediately jump into the game, learn little bits and pieces, and quickly master the game. If I download League of Legends, I can immediately jump into a blind pick game and begin learning the basics of how to play against real people without much stress. But in SC2, it's EXPECTED that I'll need to spend several days or weeks just building up enough knowledge and confidence to play a standard game of SC2? Why is the game so hard that a brand new player literally cannot play the game they downloaded? I appreciate the work towards creating a game that helps new players transition, and I especially appreciate these constant updates. But I personally think it's absolutely flawed that the game has such tight transitions and punishing mechanics that new players are expected to fail, get frustrated, and leave without some sort of alternative gaming safety net. That's actually how I got into 1v1. I know most of my fds did also except for one who never got into 1v1. We were never into 1v1 rts game except among ourselves before and it was great to have team ranked ladder for us to get better together and eventually play against each other and 1v1 ladder. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On July 18 2015 08:51 Hider wrote: His kinda saying the exact same thing here. Also he indirectly verifies my theory that he doens't know what his job is. His primary goal should be to make it more fun to play. No it doesn't matter if you make it "more difficult for pro's" if becomes less fun for the 99%. And no you can't just tell them to play Allied Commander or whatever if they actually want to play a competitive RTS 1v1.This shows a very unnuanced understanding of his target groups. We usually disagree... but here we are in total agreement. David Kim doesn't understand that making it more difficult for pro's makes the game more difficult for everyone. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On July 18 2015 07:22 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: [*]Make the game more difficult for pros. I like the rest of the rhetoric except this line. SC2 is already pretty damn hard, even for pros. It's more about making micro interactions digestible. There is plenty of skill cap left unexplored, but the window of micro expression can be broadened, if I were to glean anything from Razzia or Depth of Micro or BW and SC2: Pathing. Blue balling us on that Toss and Cyclone stuff. Let it be stupid, it's okay. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On July 18 2015 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote: We usually disagree... but here we are in total agreement. David Kim doesn't understand that making it more difficult for pro's makes the game more difficult for everyone. Yeh, though it depends how you make the game more difficult. If you make a lot of great microinteractions with counterplay while increasing the defenders advantage (so there is something to fall back on --> the game becomes more forgiving), the game will be more enjoyable for the majority of the target group. But the skillcap is also increased as you always can get better at microing your units. When its counterbased you micro you units in relation to what the enemy is doing. If the enemy is doing X really well, then you can respond by doing Y even better and he needs to do X even even better.... etc. So the skillcap of proper micro interactions is almost infinitive. But when the games become more difficult in terms of "i have to press an extra button every 10th second" or " i need to scout for 6 different things and time everything out perfectly or I die" --> the game becomes harder in the wrong way. | ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
Now it's excellent they're focusing on making the game harder because see, I don't think making SC2 more accessible and casual-friently is going to lead anywhere, the RTS genre is just not popular enough. The only way to get a real audience for SC2 is to make it a BW-like niche : an area of elite skill and excellence (which it really isn't right now) that could, eventually, find its way and keep the fire burning. | ||
|
Dekalinder
Italy166 Posts
I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, is going to benefit the game. We need less fancy explosion and more strategic depth in our goddamn strategy game. I'm thinking that people, including blizz, focus exclusively on units, forgetting that there is supposed to be an entire other half about the game, named structures. I know it's too late for this but how about adding 1 less unit to each race and instead coming up with a new interesting building that adds depth to the macro/base defense/positional warfare? Someone already inconsciusly come to that exact conclusion seeing how much support had pseudo-structure units like the combat barricade et similia. Unfortunatly it too late to hope for this kind of shift in mentality, since they already committed to this unit bloat we have but it would have been awesome to see it. | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
| ||
|
effecto
France142 Posts
 I like the approach of these updates, cannot wait for the next ones! | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
 | ||
|
awin59
1 Post
On July 18 2015 12:27 Firkraag8 wrote: You misunderstand, the biggest complaint seem to be designwise where they want to get rid of warpgate and forcefields in order to let Protoss have stronger gateway units. So it's not about balance necessarily but design. Either way I don't agree with them, both warpgate and forcefields are cool. Why everyboby seems to think gateway units are too weak? In PvZ, Protoss does not even bother to make Colosus as blink stalkers sentries and HT can compete with everything zerg until maybe ultras and brood'lords composition | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24193 Posts
that the goal of StarCraft II is not necessarily about making the most widely played game out there, but it is to make the best game that we can Hopefully. Scrap out some bad ideas you're not willing to give up on because of misplaced pride and we're nearly there. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24193 Posts
On July 18 2015 18:57 awin59 wrote: Why everyboby seems to think gateway units are too weak? In PvZ, Protoss does not even bother to make Colosus as blink stalkers sentries and HT can compete with everything zerg until maybe ultras and brood'lords composition Lurkers change the deal in HotS though. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, There is a reason MOBA's are more popular and that's because people prefer micro. The people who like building supply depots are by far in the minority. And BW had required more APM than sc2, so your example doens't make a whole lot of sense. | ||
| ||
