|
On February 24 2013 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:20 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote:
Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however. Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it  I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this. Drafting was a late entry to the entire MOBA genre, so I'm not sure how you consider that an identifiable reason. MOBA is also an entirely different genre, just created using the WC3 game engine. This would be akin to saying Unreal should become more like an MMORPG, because Lineage was built on the Unreal Engine.
FYI, the MOBA-like game was created using the Starcraft engine (Aeon of Strife), not WC3. Although it was the WC3 DotA that became the most popular. MOBA is a term that only LoL community uses. DotA is an RTS, we don't call it MOBA.
|
On February 24 2013 18:03 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 12:20 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote:
Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however. Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this. Drafting was a late entry to the entire MOBA genre, so I'm not sure how you consider that an identifiable reason. MOBA is also an entirely different genre, just created using the WC3 game engine. This would be akin to saying Unreal should become more like an MMORPG, because Lineage was built on the Unreal Engine. FYI, the MOBA-like game was created using the Starcraft engine (Aeon of Strife), not WC3. Although it was the WC3 DotA that became the most popular. MOBA is a term that only LoL community uses. DotA is an RTS, we don't call it MOBA.
What?
I was not aware that this was such a touchy subject for people. Wikipedia calls it MOBA, game sites list the genre as MOBA, the entire internet generalizes the entire genre as MOBA...
Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on?
|
A lot of the arguments in this thread against the idea presented by the OP are pretty weak. That said there is an argument that stands out from the others which renders the OPs attempt to bolt this idea onto existing mods a serious problem.
In essence the OP is talking about giving players a suite of tools with which to create their own playable race. It's a design can of worms so huge that opening onto any existing project would result in a complete change of direction for that project. We even have a post by one of the mod makers in this thread pretty much saying just that.
If you follow my argument this far then the OP ends up being a variety of "Someone make this cool idea of mine into a game" thread. The standard responses should really apply.
a. I don't think it would work but you should go do it and prove me wrong.
b. I think it's a a really interesting idea, you should go do it.
c. This guy already did it go take a look and see what you think.
I don't think any other response is really worth your time Archerofaiur.
My own view, for what it's worth, is that it's an interesting idea and I think you should go do it. I think it's different enough from the description given of existing mods that it's worth investigating.
+ Show Spoiler +A simplish way of doing just that, investigating the idea, would be to bolt it onto team mono battles somehow.
a. You'd get to see the essence of the idea up and running pretty fast - If the essence of the idea is as I've defined it, race design in the game lobby - You just need to fiddle with the start of a mono battles UMS.
b. You'd have a way of explaining the idea in a sentence - Team mono battles with a pick/ban mechanic - which makes it easier for people to accept/reject the idea, rather than tempting them to enter into one of those forever discussions about definitions of RTS and MOBA or some other waste of time.
c. You'd place the idea in a fun, experimental place which, given how radical it is, is a good thing.
I'm just spit balling here but you could keep it monobattles ish and fun by keeping a random element, maybe a random round in amongst the bans and picks, you could also end up with a full new "race" by giving people 2 units to make instead of 1.
|
|
|
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
|
So I think what Archer just outlined would be an RTS response to the MOBA rather than Starcraft proper. While you might not have resource collection in the same way or hell, even macro as we know it. Having a WCIII "elite squad" centric RTS could definitely be compatible with a picks-bans model. The advantage of this is two fold. One: the game is an open system content wise rather than closed. That alone is a huge economic boom. Primarly because the devs have a real incentive to respond quickly to user feed back and there is always something new and interesting going on. Would it be as mechanically demanding as SC2 or BW? I mean, does it really need to be? League has unseated SC2 and BW as the Esport of Korea and most of its skill is in decision making, rather than mastery over mechanics. I would be VERY interested in seeing a take on this concept.
|
On February 24 2013 22:20 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
So I think what Archer just outlined would be an RTS response to the MOBA rather than Starcraft proper. While you might not have resource collection in the same way or hell, even macro as we know it. Having a WCIII "elite squad" centric RTS could definitely be compatible with a picks-bans model. The advantage of this is two fold. One: the game is an open system content wise rather than closed. That alone is a huge economic boom. Primarly because the devs have a real incentive to respond quickly to user feed back and there is always something new and interesting going on. Would it be as mechanically demanding as SC2 or BW? I mean, does it really need to be? League has unseated SC2 and BW as the Esport of Korea and most of its skill is in decision making, rather than mastery over mechanics. I would be VERY interested in seeing a take on this concept.
Well said. To speak frankly I see some upcoming soul searching among the Starcraft community where we debate whether to choose open or closed content systems. There are advantages to closed content systems, many of them laid out in this thread already. However, it is hard to compete with a game that adds new content on a biweekly basis. I would perfer building "smart systems" that allow the devs and community to continually grow the game. SC1's map editor is a great example of this.
I feel this has particular relevance to the Starcraft Mod scene because new player attraction and retention are such an issue. If you could get a substantial proportion of the initial player base to return every 2 weeks for new content you would have a real chance growing your games fanbase. Likewise the wieght off of the developers shoulder by the community self-balancing frees them to work solely on the gameplay experience.
Now looking at videos such as your Patch 3 video you guys have allot of great ideas. I feel like the closed content system wastes allot of good ideas because these ideas all compete for content space. To be sure it results in a more refinded product. However, I also feel an evolutionary approach where units must compete with new units for the communities attention can produce a refined product.
On the subject of macro I dont think the Ban/Pick model is incompatible with a macro/economic game like starcraft. There is probably allot of design space to be explored (some of which was touched on in the WoL singleplayer).
|
Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on?
Spot on. Therein lies the difference betwixt the twain.
</end crazy archaic english>
|
Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2.
|
On February 24 2013 10:33 Assirra wrote:
Every time someone uses the "you are so afraid of change" means they don't got a counterargument.
What about "I am not opposed to change, I am opposed to bad changes?"
|
On February 25 2013 13:40 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote:
Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2.
I think you are very right to talk about goals and endpoints. After all every system is perfectly designed to achieve the exact results it achieves (~Berwick). For me, OneGoal and Starbow could be the greatest freaking mods on the planet. But if no one plays them it does not matter. The problem we see time and time again with Starcraft mods is that new mods have trouble retaining and growing their player base. There is only one mod to my knowledge that has overtaken the game it is based on in popularity and that is DOTA. It did this in large part by providing a continuous influx of new content to keep players coming back.
Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up. We need to offer a fun and compelling Blizzard-worthy experience. A decade ago Blizzard pioneered video game design by continually updating their game through patches. In 2004 they did it again by continually adding content in the massively successful WOW. And so I ask you, if other game communities have learned from our successes, why cant we?
|
Dota 2 adds new chars so fast because they are just importing them from Dota 1
|
To make the game more competative, no...
|
On February 26 2013 01:00 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 13:40 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote:
Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2. I think you are very right to talk about goals and endpoints. After all every system is perfectly designed to achieve the exact results it achieves (~Berwick). For me, OneGoal and Starbow could be the greatest freaking mods on the planet. But if no one plays them it does not matter. The problem we see time and time again with Starcraft mods is that new mods have trouble retaining and growing their player base. There is only one mod to my knowledge that has overtaken the game it is based on in popularity and that is DOTA. It did this in large part by providing a continuous influx of new content to keep players coming back. Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up. We need to offer a fun and compelling Blizzard-worthy experience. A decade ago Blizzard pioneered video game design by continually updating their game through patches. In 2004 they did it again by continually adding content in the massively successful WOW. And so I ask you, if other game communities have learned from our successes, why cant we?
So out of couriosity: Why does it have to be Starcraft?
I mean, yes it is an awesome RTS. But DotA was not Warcraft. Counterstrike was not Half Life.
I believe the way to refresh the RTS genre is to offer alternatives to Starcraft - not to improve the one game that holds up the flag anyways.
|
On February 26 2013 01:45 iGrok wrote:
Dota 2 adds new chars so fast because they are just importing them from Dota 1
LoL has added a similar amount of new units in that time frame.
|
On February 24 2013 23:02 Unshapely wrote:Spot on. Therein lies the difference betwixt the twain. </end crazy archaic english> It's also probably because LoL, HoN, and Dota are all actually RTS games. It's not an economy-based RTS for sure, but it definitely is strategically oriented, and in real time...
|
On February 26 2013 03:33 wo1fwood wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 23:02 Unshapely wrote:Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on? Spot on. Therein lies the difference betwixt the twain. </end crazy archaic english> It's also probably because LoL, HoN, and Dota are all actually RTS games. It's not an economy-based RTS for sure, but it definitely is strategically oriented, and in real time...
I tend to disagree. Though I have not seen a definition for RTS games, I believe that for an RTS there has to be some form of ingame unit creation/composition development with various choices. Else you don't have real time strategy but only combat tactics.
Sure Mobas have character development but so do shooters with different weapon options. I'd say Mobas are close relatives to RTS games and there are a lot of overlapses - but they are lacking quite some factors that are commonly connected with RTS games.
|
agreed @ big j.
You can't just say "well it's in real time and it has strategy, so it's an RTS!" because then any real time game, even racing, would be an RTS.
|
Getting a lil side tracked guys..
|
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
