|
On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more.
this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro.
so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
|
On July 23 2015 22:09 flipstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
ZvZ is in a very good place, it's not a coinflip matchup everysingle earlygame build has a preset method of dealing with it with 15 hatch and a reasonably timed pool. This just gives people flexibility, if Byul knows that Curious likes going 15 hatch 17 gas 16 pool he could go for the safer 9 pool and take the advantage or he could go 9/10 pool banes and try for the win. Seems like you agree that it's a guessing game, and at pro level it's a guessing game with a statistical background. Good. Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
What has your personal usage got to do with anything, I listed builds that you will see in the pro-scene ever so often and lastly your first point contradicts the last one, when that player going 15 hatch defends something that most masters players would flat out die to it's cool to see, it's cant at the same time not highlight the differential of skill?
I like to play solid (macrostyle), and on ladder I have 0 info on my opponent. Where's a majority of games played? Ladder. I don't consider early pools solid play, do you consider it solid play with 0 information? Nevermind that I have a personal opinion, objectively, is it solid? Yes \ no. I don't understand why you would say it's contradictory when I'm being a grownup and acknowledging that seeing someone hold what for most is a buildorderloss is cool & skillful, but in terms of the # of games where that actually happens it's not a big loss compared to the benefits reaped. It's 1 of 9 matchups, and if you divide it further where having 6 workers makes for a more interesting ZvZ than 12 would, it's extremely limited. Let me know if i need to re-word it again. Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 19:39 Ovid wrote:
You haven't given a reason why it's not a net loss because all you've compared Hots to is Hots, and your assertions on that in my opinion are wrong.
Of course I'm discussing mainly what we're losing from hots, it's a figured out game in terms of what you are advocating to keep and we know what we're losing. LOTV is in beta and will change, and if you think we can predict what the game will look like in terms of early game already, before the real pros have started practicing and preparing, before all changes to the game are said and done, you're being silly. The trade off is worth it, and many seem to agree. I don't mind losing any of the builds you have mentioned for a faster game, most are rarely seen (for good reason) and for the Z builds it's only slight variations of the same "I hope you're not (hopefully blindly) prepared" mantra. Do you think there will be more or less build order wins in LOTV compared to hots? Apart from the overlord scouting, I'm inclined to say less. I consider that a good thing, do you?
A coinflip in the purest terms is a build that yields a 50% win ratio, now if I have a statistic that says my Terran opponent has gone CC first for 90% of the games he's played then a 6 pool would have a potential 90% win ratio?
Sure it's a guess, but the definition of a guess is very different to that of a coinflip.
You don't have information on that specific player but you have the information that the majority of players will go for a 15 hatch, therefore 9 pools or other early game builds are effective choices.
Why I'm saying it's contradictory is simple, because it is if you say it's cool that a top level player could defend the build when a lowerskilled player couldn't isn't that a clear display of skill? Which is contradictory when you say that the less "coinflippy" stuff in the early game the better, it gives the better player more room to shine.
There's actually 6 different matchups not 9 unless you define a matchup from the perspective of each race. It's not only 1 of the 6 matchups that use earlygame builds like this. The reason I focused on ZvZ is purely because it uses these earlygame builds the most at a high level of play.
The problem with discussing builder order losses is because people often forget it's not just one persons choice, the person that went with the potentially unsafe build made the assumption that the opponent wouldn't be going for that earlygame build this whole balancing act is what keeps certain economic builds in check. For example ZvP if cannon rushes and 2 gates didn't exist why would I never not go for 3 hatch before pool? Some people don't even go 15 hatch vs Protoss because they find dealing with cannon rushes too hard, is that another clear distinction of skill?
I said somewhere in this thread part of the problem will be that because the earlygame builds are not effective or the percentage of wins with them is lower that economic builds will be more out of control because they can push it much further without being punished, further helping the game to accelerate into the lategame.
|
On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers.
That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers?
And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less.
Delayed gratification.
|
On July 23 2015 23:04 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers. That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification.
and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decided to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower.
and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
i'm glad to see Blizzard has the balls to avoid some formulaic approach to game development.
|
On July 23 2015 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 23:04 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers. That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification. and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety.
SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
|
|
|
On July 23 2015 23:42 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 23:04 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers. That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification. and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety. SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter?
Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2.
SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations.
addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a bigger choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller.
to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes.
a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games.
b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games.
(a) offers more consumer choice
if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH
and if you want to bring up Dota2 and LoL then your Blizzard product of choice is Heroes of the Storm .. it is not SC2.
|
On July 24 2015 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 23:42 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 23:04 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers. That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification. and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety. SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter? Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2. SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations. addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a big choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller. to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes. a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games. b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games. (a) offers more consumer choice if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH
The 12worker start only removes a tiny bit of that problem. Instead of watching 6-7min build ups you now watch 4-5min build ups. Then the game still ends 5-6mins later on average and you have to watch the build up again. If the second phase would be prolonged with a more stable gameplay (defender's advantages, maybe a tiny bit slower economy/tech progression, coinflip plays removed) we would probably get a much better downtime:actiontime relation. Instead of 1:1 it might become like 1:2.
Whether it is 6 or 12 worker start is a tiny factor, the important variable would be to get games into the lategame and extenting the midgame. I believe that this is also why Swarm Host games had so many viewers. They were stupid, boring, but they also made you really involved with the story of the game.
Basically longer games make for unique stories because you get out of the "optimized" early game phase faster. The later game phases simply branch out eventually and the longer the game develops, the more unique branches you get. They may eventually funnel back together into fewer branches, but the story of a single game as a whole is more unique.
|
let's hope the new resources per base and the new units/tweaks help the late game flourish in diverse and interesting ways
|
On July 24 2015 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2015 23:42 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 23:04 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 22:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 23 2015 06:37 mishimaBeef wrote:On July 23 2015 06:09 Ovid wrote:On July 23 2015 06:03 mishimaBeef wrote:
"Secondly, there's downtime in all the games shortening the games and making you able to play more games actually could increase the amount of downtime in your gaming time."
sorry what? It was badly worded, let me rephrase. Lets say in HOTS a average game takes 10 minutes with 2 minutes of downtime, now lets say the average LOTV game takes 5 minutes with 1 minute of downtime. Technically the amount of downtime in your playing time is the same. Fair enough, but consider the following: if you lose the games primarily based on one key mistake, then in the HotS case you spent 10 minutes per key mistake, while in the LotV case you spent 5 minutes per key mistake. So saying that both cases include 10 minutes game time and 2 minutes down time, doesn't tell the full picture in my opinion. Example: I am great at everything up to controlling my mid-late game engagement. Well if the games are shorter, I can more easily get to that point and practice it more. this is exactly how i look at it as well... and when watching GSL and WCS games you'll get more action packed into a shorter time period... and so i'll only have invest 5 minutes of viewing time watching the build up to 1 top pro pulling some god-like move on another top pro. so i think it'll be better for both players and viewers. That's why League with it's 35 minute average game and Dota 2 with 40 minute average lack viewers? And that's totally why the longest game in SC2 had the most viewers for the WCS challenger season, when you have more time invested into watching something the outcome is more meaningful, if you've watched something for 5 minutes you are not as invested into it therefore it matters less. Delayed gratification. and again, Blizzard is aware of all this and they decides to make sure teh game time for Heroes was substantially lower. and i like this because it offers consumers choice and variety. SC2 already has the smallest gametime of all the popular competitive games why the need to make it shorter? Heroes is Blizzard's direct competitor to LoL and Dota2. SC2 is a different genre with a different player base that has different expectations. addressing your comment directly though ... widening the difference in game times offers the consumer a bigger choice and also more granular because each single "game unit" is smaller. to simplify let's assume the average LotV game is 10 minutes and the average HotS game time is 15 minutes. a) i can chose to spend 10,20, or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 or 3 games. b) as opposed to choosing to spend 15 or 30 minutes watching/playing 1 or 2 games. (a) offers more consumer choice if you want to compare SC2 .. .compare it to other RTS games like C&C and Homeworld and CoH and if you want to bring up Dota2 and LoL then your Blizzard product of choice is Heroes of the Storm .. it is not SC2.
I brought it up when you were talking about viewership/playing numbers relative to length of the game.
The point I'm making is why fiddle with the gametime when that's obviously got nothing to do with the playbase/viewership?
Any more debating on this point will just lead us into other aspects of game design and derail the thread yet again.
Pretty much what I'm saying is there's no need to change the gametime it's not the thing that drives popularity.
|
how can you conclude that gametime has nothing to do with playbase?
|
On July 24 2015 02:58 mishimaBeef wrote:
how can you conclude that gametime has nothing to do with playbase?
Because league has 27 million players a month and an average of 35 minute gameplay Dota has 40 minute gametime and has around 500k people playing every hour. It's pretty clear that gametime isn't the major component of why SC2 doesn't have the same playerbase/viewer numbers.
|
so... you are saying that because product X has Average_game_length > Threshold, and product X is successful, that Average_game_length necessarily has no effect on success. ? did i get that right?
all that really says is: here's a game with high average game time, and it is successful...
that doesn't logically conclude that average game time has nothing to do with success...
heck, how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
|
On July 24 2015 03:05 mishimaBeef wrote:
so... you are saying that because product X has Average_game_length > Threshold, and product X is successful, that Average_game_length necessarily has no effect on success. ? did i get that right?
all that really says is: here's a game with high average game time, and it is successful...
that doesn't logically conclude that average game time has nothing to do with success...
heck, how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, the most popular game has a 35 minute game time. The main reason Jimmy put for shortening the game is because people are time strapped, a game is game it's a use of free time if the most popular game manages to pull that amount of players and has a high game time its safe to say that gametime isn't a major factor for popularity of a game.
|
well you didn't prove anything though... again, i ask how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
|
On July 24 2015 03:29 mishimaBeef wrote:
well you didn't prove anything though... again, i ask how do we know that the success of those games wouldn't increase if their avg. game times decreased?
It's a conclusion I am making from the data I have seen, it's not 100% proof that it's not connected but I would say that for anyone who's not trying to disagree with any point I'm making at all opportunities the stats quite clearly show that shorter gametime isn't a massive reason for a games popularity.
|
sure, but gametime is one of many variables in a game's success as well
|
On July 24 2015 03:32 mishimaBeef wrote:
sure, but gametime is one of many variables in a game's success as well
Lets flip this on it's head, wheres your evidence for that?
|
simple... would dota/lol be successful if the average game time was 3 hrs?
see the thing is that my claim (that gametime is one of the variables in a game's success) is much easier to defend than yours (that gametime has *no* effect on a game's success)
|
On July 24 2015 03:33 mishimaBeef wrote:
simple... would dota/lol be successful if the average game time was 3 hrs?
see the thing is that my claim (that gametime is one of the variables in a game's success) is much easier to defend than yours (that gametime has *no* effect on a game's success)
Quite possibly, according to an american time use survey the average amount of leisure time for men is 6 hours and 5.2 hours for women. You are also taking it to the extremes people are estimating the amount of time saved in LOTV is around 5 minutes a match.
Don't think I have said no effect, I think I've said that its a highly negligible change for positive or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
