EPTBut don't worry! Eventually people will get tired of those games, and they won't sell anymore. After that, if video games don't just die completely, then innovation will sell. Grinds and meaningless objectives for cookies will die out, because they are just part of the same old stuff.
Leagues, Divisions, Elo, and Where SC is Headed - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Omegalisk
United States337 Posts
But don't worry! Eventually people will get tired of those games, and they won't sell anymore. After that, if video games don't just die completely, then innovation will sell. Grinds and meaningless objectives for cookies will die out, because they are just part of the same old stuff. | ||
|
rwan
Canada68 Posts
On May 24 2010 00:46 Brad wrote: People that have only played SC1 need to realize that times have changed, and it's not changing back anytime soon. Every game will be like this from now on. The days of things being 'simple' are over. Correction. The days of simplicity is progressing more and more. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:21 joolz wrote:The engineers are all human and they have stupid bosses who have stupid company executives who like your money and know how to cut costs & development to maximize profits. That's just how it works. Sorry... And that's exactly why making Blizzard "think about it" can not possibly do any good. The managers have thought about it for years and we see the product of this process. And it's not just Blizzard and it's not just the gaming industry. It's everything around you. The next time you hear someone dissing capitalism or economical neo-liberalism, that's what they are actually talking about: achievements in StarCraft 2. | ||
|
Marimokkori
United States306 Posts
My only comment here is note the name is solo/team BETA crusher. Is it not possible that they nerfed requirements because they reset achievements and there was less than two weeks left to play? Assuming these are strictly beta achievements, it would be near impossible for most people to get even close to having both of them in less than two weeks. So reducing requirements makes some sense to me at least. Other than that, I'd have to agree with you on most of it. | ||
|
OneWhoIsMany
Canada292 Posts
Balance issues, unless grossly so are not something that are that big of deal. Simply put this game will be balanced over years, it can get a good place in beta but if you honestly expect it to be good out of beta your insane. | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
On May 23 2010 23:06 Onea wrote: Let's just not buy the "Blizz for ESPORTS" thing anymore. If SC2 is indeed designed for ESPORTS, we should have gotten: - LAN - Chat channels - Host tournament (w/ grids and stuff) - Global ladder - No divisions The achievements shouldn't even be at its current state. The achievements IMO aren't supposed to be "I Win" or "Zerg Solo Streaker". It should be something like "Blizzard SC2 League S1 Champion" or something like that. Hosting tournaments on bnet and the achievments would have gone hand in hand. Does anyone fucking care about "Zerg solo streaker?" How bout "Silver league get better faster tournament ro8"? That would be loads better. | ||
|
Pking
Sweden142 Posts
On May 24 2010 00:47 SubKaiser wrote: I agree 100%. As being a chess player, dividing a ladder into divisions is just absurd! So it is in ANY competetive environment/sport. I'm by far no pro gamer and I'm fine with being #93407 in the world (or whatever). But being Top 10 in Gold means NOTHING to me because I can't figure out what the hell that means. In chess you have an ELO number so can quite well compare to other chess players. Sure i can beat another player of 200 points higher. But in general that is the exception. And dividing into more different leagues which are being further divided into divisions falsifies these ELO numbers. So as a chess player you may start out playing against friends and relatives, you get to a point where you beat them consistently and you decide to join the chess club at your school, you work your way up until you win some tournament and start competing against chess players from other regions. And at some point you start competing in the global arena. This is similar to how the leagues and divisions work. You're saying it means NOTHING to be the top player in your school/division. Of course it means something, it means that you are the best player in your school/division. If you want to know your skill compared to players in other divisions there is the rating (correct me if I'm wrong but the rating does apply to the league not to the individual division). I don't see anything wrong with this. | ||
|
OneBk
Sweden157 Posts
| ||
|
Squallcloud
France466 Posts
| ||
|
LightYears
39 Posts
| ||
|
Shrewmy
Australia199 Posts
Lumping everyone up into one league would make it way too cumbersome and annoying, splitting it up promotes more competitiveness. Why are people so obsessed with arbitrary numbers anyway? It's not like you earn any rewards for being number 1 in your division. I will certainly agree that not all the problems the beta has will be fixed, but I've played far worse betas. World of Warcraft on release was terrible, and arguably still is depending on who you talk to. | ||
|
voiDude
South Africa18 Posts
| ||
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:47 Eyeon wrote: I agree with this. If B.net 2.0 was to streamline e-sports, then it should have the functionality that esports has outside of B.net integrated into B.net. This game is catered to a more broad audience. TL as a community is a minority in the grand scope of Blizzard/Activision  | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10705 Posts
| ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
I agree that it would be nice if they made the ladder system more transparent and I suspect they might after release. After all, they are still tweaking it. The stated aim of the ladder is to match players with similarly skilled opponents which seems a perfectly good design brief. Perhaps their system is richer than a simple linear scale of 1-N as you suggest? It might take into account match-up and map specific win ratios. Your absolute ranking might not even exist in their system. As for the general moan of 'games are easier than they used to be'. This strikes me as rose tinted nostalgia. Just because games are hard does not make them any more competitive or more fun. Especially in multiplayer games, the competitiveness of a game is often out of the hands of the developers completely. Case in point: Super Smash Bros Melee. Nintendo set out to make a casual, 'noob friendly' game. Players took it and made it into one of the most competitive beat em ups out there. I do agree that we need - LAN - Chat channels - Host tournament (w/ grids and stuff) The rest is just self indulgent whining. | ||
|
f0rk
England172 Posts
Ladder play means jack shit, it's only reason for existing should be to help with matchmaking. Who cares if it's broken down it make it more friendly? Do you really think if you went from 50005 to 50000 you've got better at the game? What if you fall down again, did you just randomly get worse? Only you and the people you play against a lot can say if your improving. If you need a ladder number to justify your play you're no different to the 'scrubs' bronze/silver/gold apparently caters to. Same with achievements, who gives a fuck; if people enjoy that shallow reward system, let them have their fun. There are obvious things that b.net 2 could do better, like an automated tournament bracket system, a game lobby that doesn't go down between games so you can play a series easily, chat channels etc. But in a competitive game, ladder rating systems mean nothing at the highest level, so it doesn't effect the e-sport potential of the game at all. If someone was #1 in the world on this big ladder, I'm 100% sure that guy wouldn't be the best player in the world, probably not even close. And if you work 'in the video game industry', why don't you just focus on getting the studio you work for to make a 'good video game' instead of picking at insignificant holes in others games. | ||
|
Sandrosuperstar
Sweden525 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:42 lolaloc wrote: Let's just not buy the "Blizz for ESPORTS" thing anymore. If SC2 is indeed designed for ESPORTS, we should have gotten: - LAN - Chat channels - Host tournament (w/ grids and stuff) - Global ladder - No divisions The achievements shouldn't even be at its current state. The achievements IMO aren't supposed to be "I Win" or "Zerg Solo Streaker". It should be something like "Blizzard SC2 League S1 Champion" or something like that. This is whats need focus!! And to op it was a good read and i fully agree :D you should post this in the bnet sc2 general forums aswell | ||
|
Wire
United States494 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:42 lolaloc wrote: Let's just not buy the "Blizz for ESPORTS" thing anymore. If SC2 is indeed designed for ESPORTS, we should have gotten: - LAN - Chat channels - Host tournament (w/ grids and stuff) - Global ladder - No divisions The achievements shouldn't even be at its current state. The achievements IMO aren't supposed to be "I Win" or "Zerg Solo Streaker". It should be something like "Blizzard SC2 League S1 Champion" or something like that. I really like this list, there is a lot Blizzard needs to fix. In the long run though, I don't think the release will be perfect, however hard they work on it. The truth is with everything they wanted to do and both Activision and public pressure they had to release beta and the game this year. They would have liked 3 more years to work on it if they could. So, when the release comes out i still expect 20+ patches worth of balancing issues. It's okay though, I'll be busy playing campaign on brutal mode :3 | ||
|
Tristan
Canada566 Posts
On May 24 2010 01:42 TelecOm1 wrote: i agree with everyone except doubting blizzard. Upon release the game will be alot different, and I disagree, blizzard is full of magic magicians. Meet Starcraft's lead programmer ![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2j5kjsk.jpg) | ||
| ||
