|
Of course this is how you analyse this situation. We are talking about entertainment and whether certain aspects of entertainment should stay or not. The only reason why something should be removed is because there is nobody who is entertained.
The issue is that you aren't distinguishing between "what is fun to play" and "what is fun to watch". The latter should at most be a secondary objective while the former is the primary goal.
If you go by viewernumbers, you also see high viewer numbers for dumb bugs/clearly broken shit. That can be fun to see, but it doens't mean it has a healthy impact on the game.
The healthy metod is to make sure that small mistakes doesn't prevent an inexperienced player from "actually playing the game".
That means, it comes down to whether you think "actually playing the game" = Reading about builds, studying replays, writing down timings".
Or if you think actually playing the game = Controlling units.
I am obviously convinced that the latter is correct.
You might think some type of mixture where you only are allowed to play the game after having studied builds for a long enough time is the correct solution (kinda what Sc2 does). But while you think that, players will continue to play LOL where they don't have to bother with stuff like that.
Look at part of the reason why Starbow could never be succesful: New players simply couldn't actually play the game because they needed a super tight understanding of actual builds + execution. I don't know a single person who started to play Starbow because he thought learning builds was fun.
No what he was "promised" was less deathball and more positionally based macro games, but all he gets is losses to all-ins/timing attacks.
|
Of course cheese is fun to play, if it wasnt people wouldnt be doing it. What do you think? That cheesers are all so miserable while cheesing and they desperately hope that someone would help them to stop cheese?
I personally enjoy playing against cheese. I love it to be cannon rushed, I win almost everytime that happens and I enjoy it because its fun to me.
|
Of course cheese is fun to play, if it wasnt people wouldnt be doing it. What do you think? That cheesers are all so miserable while cheesing and they desperately hope that someone would help them to stop cheese?
Reread my comments from last couple of pages, it was explained there.
I personally enjoy playing against cheese. I love it to be cannon rushed, I win almost everytime that happens and I enjoy it because its fun to me.
Well you also think Medi's are more fun than Medivacs. I think the former is the most boring unit in the world while the latter actally allows me to micro and multitask. Sounds like we have very different visions.
My vision is that I see opportunites for taking alot of players from the MOBA (and CS i guess?) target group and get them into the RTS genre. So why do people play LOL? Well occationally people will say due to it being a social game, but I think thats mostly a myth becasue the social experience really suck in that game (people rage in soloq and you often time wanna mute).
More likely, because its a game that focusses on player vs player "micro" interactions", and the learning curve is forgiving. I think the RTS genre has a lot to learn from that, and it could be obtained while still being an RTS (and not a MOBA) as you will control multiple units at once.
I honestly don't see any eviedence/reasoning to expect that the target group of enjoying playing versus cheese cheese/build order losses is very high on the other hand. If that was the case, I am sure we would see more custom groups where people just cheesed each other all day because everyone had fun (because if you play ladder you aren't guaranteed to play vs this "fun" playstyle).
Or I guess there would be a another succesful game which copied the satisfaction people got from buildorder wins (though that's obviously kinda hard and I don't really know exactly what is either).
|
You were criticizing me before because I did not give references and now you claim that there are not many people who enjoy it. You dont have any numbers or references on your hand either.
Furthermore, your arguement is ridiculous. The idea behind cheese is that you dont know it is coming, how would anybody possibly join a group to get cheesed on purpose? That defeats the idea.
You just have to realize that not everybody shares your point of view. This is a subjective topic whether you like it or not and no matter how often you repeat yourself, your opinions are never going to be more valid then those of others.
|
You were criticizing me before because I did not give references and now you claim that there are not many people who enjoy it. You dont have any numbers or references on your hand either.
No I analyzed the satisfaction players get from playing MOBA's multiple times before and I also did this in the above post. Further, also referenced to Starbow feedback which I think is very related to this topic (though ofc its low sample size, but you take what you can get).
Your source was a popular youtube series, which I don't think is that relevant for the playing experiene (as I explained previously). But I do think having "wacky"/weird stuff in the game is good, but it shouldn't make the learning curve more unforgiving in the proces.
What I am trying to do is analyze it this way: If my theory is correct, then the gaming industry would look a certain way. If there is a discrepancy between what the world actually looks like and my theory, then obviously the theory should be reevaluated, but I don't see that being the case.
With regards to the "lots of people like playing cheese/versus cheese", if that's true then wouldn't there be a ton of other signs to indicate that? Wouldn't we see more "cheese groups", or more people giving feedback to blizzard that they want to see more cheese? Prior to LOTV we saw alot of people saying they want to have more micro, which is an example of a data source.
I never met anyone who was a consistent cheeser. Most people who cheesed seem to do it for the sake of diversity, and my argument is that that need can be safisfied in a more healthy way. (But perhaps my view is biased here because I've never been below high diamond in Starcraft, so I don't have a lot of bronze-gold buddies.)
I also explained why we are not seeeing a lot of data sources with regards "cheese/all-ins should be removed", because the people who want that are already not playing Starcraft and not vising forums anymore, but playing MOBA's or CS. But that is why I think the Starbow forums provided a very interesting opportunity for insight.
Those were some guys who genuinly wanted Starbow to succeed, but just couldn't get completley into it, but still is interested enough in the project to visit the forums.
I think that's different from how your average CS/LOL guy looks at Sc2. They might try it out for a couple of hours before discovering that the game isn't for them because they die to stupid shit/have no idea what they are doing, and then go back to their original games without giving any feedback in the proces.
You just have to realize that not everybody shares your point of view. This is a subjective topic whether you like it or not and no matter how often you repeat yourself, your opinions are never going to be more valid then those of others.
Hence the reason I wrote this: Sounds like we have very different visions. . That comment doesn't imply that you are wrong in enjoying cheese. However, look at what the original context is. I wrote the following:
If the RTS genre is too survive
So what I am talking about is how the RTS genre can get the most amount of people playing it in the future. The only criteria/definition of an RTS (relative to MOBA) is that you control multiple units at once. Every other gameplay element is up for debate.
When I look at your arguments, I don't see any reasons to expect that having buildorder-wins is a formula for succes (I guess that's what you imply?)
And if you think so, then what is your theory for why Sc2 is less played than LOL? Is it the mechanical barrier? Is it lack of F2P?
To sum up, I think the most significant reasons for its declining playerbase are the following (where 1 is the most significant).
1. The learning barrier is too unforgiving
2. Game is too mechanical demanding (in LOL and CS, the mechanics are more of a skillbap thing whereas in Sc2 its something you need to do all the time).
3. Lack of F2P
4. Bad unit interactions
5. Lack of strategic diversity
|
You might think some type of mixture where you only are allowed to play the game after having studied builds for a long enough time is the correct solution (kinda what Sc2 does). But while you think that, players will continue to play LOL where they don't have to bother with stuff like that.
This is incredibly wrong. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups.
So no, you have to bother with that stuff there too, but just like in sc2 you can learn it while playing the game if you are fine with losing a bunch of games.
If anything it is a myth that mobas have that easy of a learning curve, the only thing which is different is the mechanical requirements are a lot lower.
"Cheese" is also completely relative and thus you cannot remove it from a game, there is even cheese in mobas (even though you obviously cannot lose to it straight up in the first few minutes of a game)
So yes i also think that future rts games (if they wanna be really successful) have to become less mechanical, but this doesn't include to remove "cheese" from the game.
|
@Hider:
You just assume that this way the RTS genre will get more players. You assume that cheese is keeping people away. You assume that less cheese makes RTS games more appealing. And I share neither of these assumptions. I think removing cheese will not bring in any new players but scare away some that are still there.
Cheese is not the reason people dont play SC2. The RTS genre has always been a niche, there are simply some people who dont like it. Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking.
Removing cheese has no effect on this. (yes, in theory that is less choices, but overall its an insignificant amount that is gained for new players but a significant amount that is lost for those who like cheese)
Also: If you want to make the game more appealing to new players make it less hardcore and more casual. Give us the easy micro / macro button and make F2 + a + mouse click to one A-Move-All-My-Army button. And BAM bunch of new players coming in!
You like that? I dont.
|
. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups.
I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3.
Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft.
There is a difference between a forgiving learning curve and an unforgiving learning curve.
|
On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Show nested quote +Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft.
You are wrong though
|
On July 29 2015 20:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft. You are wrong though
Tell me how you instadie after you build the wrong items? Instead of just getting 40-60 behind which I suggested was the healthy approach.
The learning curve of Starcraft, would litterally be this in a MOBA.
--> You build item X as your first item, but it should be your second time
--> Opponent build item Z as his first item
--> As a consequence you lose and need to que up again.
|
On July 29 2015 20:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 20:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On July 29 2015 20:36 Hider wrote:. A moba needs just as much knowledge as sc2 when you start playing, you could even argue it needs A LOT more of it.
There are item builds, every champ has different skills and in general the laning matchups. Okay, this is the 3rd time I see this today. Reread my posts. I already explained this multiple times by now. Requoting myself from page 3. Compare that to what happens when you play a MOBA. You build the wrong item and.... you can continue to play the game You don't instalose as you do in Starcraft, which is a major difference in the learning curve. It's not that there are less or more things to learn in Starcraft relaive to MOBA's, but its that the learning curve is a lot more punishing in Starcraft. You are wrong though Really. Tell me how you instadie after you build the wrong items? Instead of just getting 40-60 behind which I suggested was the healthy approach.
If you are new to lol for example and do everything wrong you maybe as a team don't lose the game instantly, but you as a person will instantly get shit on.
That's just as punishing, even when the end result might still be a win.
edit: Yeah i don't agree with your analogy. You assume that in Bronze league there are these sharp timings where you have to play perfectly to hold the cheese or whatever, no this is not the case.
If anything the problem are the mechanics, even a player in bronze will know his hotkeys and thus have better macro than the newbie.
|
but you as a person will instantly get shit on.
That's just as punishing, even when the end result might still be a win.
This doesn't just happen if you are new though, so I wouldn't say that getting trashtalked is a learning curve thing, but rather its something related to the awfull social experience of playing MOBA's.
Also, when you are new you play versus other new players too (like first 10-20 times), and noone there has any idea what they are doing. I don't remember getting shit on really when I learned the game and I had no idea what to do except to buy recommended items.
I don't even rememer any shittalking at all in the very first games, perhaps because I didn't have the overview to look at chat at all, because I was busy learning the game.
What I remember instead was that I could go directly into a player vs. player-interaction where I could cast abilities on my opponent and kill him if I did that well.
Then eventually - after you played maybe 20 games and discovered that you actually find it pretty fun --> Then you start to do a bit more research. E.g. you read up on best items to buy and skillorder for that champ. But even that is nowhere near as complicated and timeconsuming as learning to be able to "play" Starcraft. The problem with Starcraft is that you need to learn before you "play the game" unlike what you do in MOBA's and CS.
edit: Yeah i don't agree with your analogy. You assume that in Bronze league there are these sharp timings where you have to play perfectly to hold the cheese or whatever, no this is not the case.
Saying its about sharp timings in bronze, is somewhat of a strawman. That's what it is in Starbow, but the same concept can be applied here.
To be more specific, the concept is about the easiness of being able to play the game. If you don't know what to do versus a specific build (like a cannon rush) you will basically die (ofc if you have 10 times better mechanic you can hold it off, but we are talking about players with similar mechanica skills).
If everyone thought it was superfun to play vs cannon rushes, then okay, cannon rush would be "playing the game".
But if most people think that the game is fun when you control units and fight other units (comparable to MOBAs where you control heroes and fight other heroes), then the following logic will be true:
The harder you make it for new players to get into scenarios where unit control matters, the more likely they are to just go back to CS or MOBA's.
|
I actually meant that you will die a lot because you bought the wrong items.
Recommended items etc obviously help a lot, but something similar could be done in an rts too i would imagine.
I played three accounts to lvl 30 in lol, i cannot really remember the first time, but the other two times i had a lot of new players in my team/the enemy team who did something wrong cause they didn't know it any better and because of that they died like 5 times in the first 10 mins, a very high percentage of these players left the game then.
So again, i don't think that mobas are less punishing overall. (and dota2 is a lot worse than lol in this regard)
What I remember instead was that I could go directly into a player vs. player-interaction where I could cast abilities on my opponent and kill him if I did that well.
Well yeah that is the fun part of the game, it isn't mechanically hard, you can have little success moments pretty fast.
The same can be said about cheeses though, you can learn a 6 pool pretty fast and do reasonably well in Bronze league i would imagine.
Just as you can buy "easy" guns in csgo and don't have to worry about stopping to shoot and spray control.
I mean overall i agree with you that rts games which are designed like sc2 aren't that fun for most people, they are mechanically hard, the pvp interaction is too low and they tend to snowball too hard.
But looking at a cheese play and say it's any worse than losing to an allin in minute 12, or building a huge deathball and lose in minute 25 after one big fight, i think this is arbitrary at best (even though they surely are people who hate losing in the first few minutes, others love it though)
The problem with Starcraft is that you need to learn before you "play the game" unlike what you do in MOBA's and CS
See this is what i simply cannot agree with. Would it help? Yes. Would it help in csgo/lol/dota2? Yes.
Do i need to study to play in sc2 silver league? No.
I think you exaggerate a lot when it comes to sc2 tbh, the burden of knowledge isn't anyhwere as big as you make it out to be.
Mechanics are by far the most important part => you have to play the game.
That itself could be a problem though.
But if most people think that the game is fun when you control units and fight other units (comparable to MOBAs where you control heroes and fight other heroes), then the following logic will be true:
The harder you make it for new players to get into scenarios where unit control matters, the more likely they are to just go back to CS or MOBA's.
The unit control matters ESPECIALLY in cheese games though. There are obviously build order loses as well, but if you have a somewhat okish buildorder (for that level) unit control is the most important part.
Is the unit control fun at this point? That is an entirely different dicsussion.
But yeah again, i think doing the wrong build is the equivalent to building the wrong items / skilling in a moba for example.
In sc2 you might lose the game and get punished, in a moba you will die a lot and get punished.
Both experiences are bad and both experiences are there cause the burden of knowledge is similar.
But yeah, maybe people overall care too much for winning
|
I actually meant that you will die a lot because you bought the wrong items.
Recommended items etc obviously help a lot, but something similar could be done in an rts too i would imagine.
I played three accounts to lvl 30 in lol, i cannot really remember the first time, but the other two times i had a lot of new players in my team/the enemy team who did something wrong cause they didn't know it any better and because of that they died like 5 times in the first 10 mins, a very high percentage of these players left the game then.
So again, i don't think that mobas are less punishing overall. (and dota2 is a lot worse than lol in this regard)
Yeh so I am not saying you are completely incorrect either. Its not something that is black and white, but it's not hard to follow recommended items. Thus, I hope you can follow me a bit when I say it's easier to "play the game in LOL" than playing the game in Starcraft
(assuming playing the game: unit/champ vs unit/champ "micro" interactions).
Another thing you often see with bronze players today is that they lock them selves inside a base. This is also something that kinda prevents playing the game, and I can understand why people see allins as a solution to avoiding this problem. if you learn one simple build then you know that moving at that time can guarantee you a high win/rate percentage, whereas you have no idea when to move out in a macro game.
On the other hand in a MOBA you see all new and experienced players come out on the map for the "objective" (lasthitting) ASAP, and they can always fall back on the defenders advantage (towers).
i think that's another important part of MOBA's in that "macro games" are "aggressive" and not "turtle focussed" (they are more turtly focussed in compettive games than in casual games, somewhat unlike what it is in Sc2).
Obviously this is only something a future RTS can adress, not something you can change with Sc2.
The unit control matters ESPECIALLY in cheese games though.
So the type of cheese/all-ins I am thinking about is mostly (again if you go back to the original context you see this example) is when player 1 heavily outnumbers player 2 due to having a lot more units. In that case its a matter of numbers and not about micro.
A better example might be an Oracle flying into a mineral line where there are only 4 Marines. No amount of micro can save you here.
But even then, I think you should be able to make micro errors and just be behind (rather than dead). Otherwise the game will feel too frustrating/unforgiving.
In sc2 you might lose the game and get punished, in a moba you will die a lot and get punished.
But while dying in a MOBA you are typically playing the game. You are casting abilities and attempting to dodge neemy abilites (though you probably suck at that). That is the core of what the game is about.
So I think you are a bit confusing "being able to win" with "being able to play the game", because its not about whether you win or not but whether you have fun in the proces. If you have fun dying to an Oracle or a cannon rush, sure, then you would also be "playing the game". But if that's not the case, I think there is a big flaw in the learning curve of Sc2.
I think you exaggerate a lot when it comes to sc2 tbh, the burden of knowledge isn't anyhwere as big as you make it out to be.
Mechanics are by far the most important part => you have to play the game.
The issue I have with the mechanics argument is that (I think) you imagine some type of scenario where a master play does a hopeless build and the bronze player does a really good build that counters the master-league build. But the master-player ofc still easily wins --> Concludes mechanics matter more than knowledge.
However, that's not very relevant for the learning barrier. Most likely you will within your first 10-20 games play against other people with awful mechanics. But if one of these guys has discovered some type of build that counters your build --> You don't get to "play the game".
That's not to say that the mechanical barrier isn't irrelevant either. In fact I think I mentioned previously that the learning barrier was related to both knowledge and stuff like control groups, splisecond micro errors and macro. These concepts should also be made easier if we are to follow my theory that the main attraction of the RTS genre is micro (and a more back and fourth experience).
I am sure you can also imagine some scenarios where Player1 has marines and player 2 has banelings and army size is equal, but its GG after one battle because Player1 couldn't micro his marines properly. In that scenario, you could argue that he was playing the game, but that the mechanics required were too high. However, I think a larger issue here is the lack of defenders advantage so you have nothing to fall back on after making a micro mistake.
|
You just assume that this way the RTS genre will get more players.
No. Reread my posts. I explained multiple times my thought proces leading up to that claim. If you think its wrong, challenge my specific arguments instead.
Also: If you want to make the game more appealing to new players make it less hardcore and more casual. Give us the easy micro / macro button and make F2 + a + mouse click to one A-Move-All-My-Army button. And BAM bunch of new players coming in!
You like that? I dont.
Did it any point occur to you that I want to increase the micro skillcap while reducing the entrance barrier, aka following the easy to learn hard to master concept?
Either you are making intentional strawmans or your ignorant.
Cheese is not the reason people dont play SC2. The RTS genre has always been a niche, there are simply some people who dont like it.
First of, do you seriosuly think my point is that cheese is the main reason people don't play Sc2? Is that really your assesment of all my comments.?
Didn't you see that I even specificed the top 5 reasons right above your post where I said the main reason is the unforgiving learning barrier. If so, what exactly leads you to think that unforgiving learning barrier is just cheese? Wouldn't it had made more sense - if that was the case - for me to just write cheese then?
Secondly, one might also consider that the RTS genre has lots of potential, but that the execution hasn't been good enough.
On the other hand, you seem like someone who isn't attempting to understand the needs of the target group and have no theory on why other genres are more popular. I even asked you for your "theory" (after presenting mine) but you didn't provide any but continued to make random claims followed by a strawman.
Maybe I am wrong in my assesments, but with your attitude its 100% impossible that the genre becomes popular.
|
Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game.
These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre.
|
On July 29 2015 22:01 Hider wrote:I think you have demonstrated you have no idea what I am talking about or your making an intentional strawman. But enjoy your amove Medi'cs in your mod or cannon rush random players on the ladder.
If I want to play a Starcraft I enjoy I can always go back to HOTS and have fun with the high skillcap Maru playstyle. But yeh I am the guy who wants to have more amove.
You are just laughable. You accuse me of using strawman arguments when you do the same thing the next sentence. Do you not realize what you are writing?
On July 29 2015 22:01 Hider wrote:No. Reread my posts. I explained multiple times my thought proces leading up to that claim. If you think its wrong, challenge my specific arguments instead.
I read your post and this is exactly how you sound to me. If this is not what you meant you should try harder to portray it the way you want it to be.
This is what you wrote:
They might try it out for a couple of hours before discovering that the game isn't for them because they die to stupid shit/have no idea what they are doing, and then go back to their original games without giving any feedback in the proces.
(what you say is: Cheese too hard for newbies!)
When I look at your arguments, I don't see any reasons to expect that having buildorder-wins is a formula for succes
(what you say is: Cheese is build-order win!)
To sum up, I think the most significant reasons for its declining playerbase are the following (where 1 is the most significant).
1. The learning barrier is too unforgiving
2. Game is too mechanical demanding (in LOL and CS, the mechanics are more of a skillbap thing whereas in Sc2 its something you need to do all the time).
(What you say is: Cheese too hard because learning how to deal with it / actually dealing with it is too hard!)
|
On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre.
So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point?
|
I Disagree, i reaper expand every game, i send one of my first scvs, by the time it dies or is on its way back the reaper is at there base, if you dont want to sacrafice one of your starting workers for information and you would rather be greedy you desserve to lose, simple as that equation scv - lost mining for information , no information for x minerals, and my reaper is usually there when scv is on way back ,.. and i can react from there
|
On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point?
I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication.
Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
