|
On May 31 2010 10:54 Ryhn wrote:Vexx: Show nested quote +
I would compare this story to SC1 and SC2 where competitive players may decide not to purchase the game because of some sort of cheese.
Vexx: Show nested quote +
A potentially serious 1v1er might start their SC2 career in a team game where there's more room for error.
I think you're slightly confused about what kind of player you want to talk about. So which one of these two very different players do you want to talk about? You just jumped from one to the other quite abruptly.
Why are you guys convinced that a competitive SC2 player can't play 1v1 and 2v2? I know SC1 was all 1v1, but now there's a nice matchmaking system that is definitely going to promote 2v2 too. 1v1 will be the ultimate skill arena...
Maybe I misunderstand your point. As I understand you think that people who play 1v1 and people who play 2v2 are mutually exclusive groups?
Maybe we are not in agreement about "competitive player." I'm talking about any player who is interested in not sucking... not just 12 hour a day pros.
Regardless, I don't believe it has anything to do with my point... any player (besides people getting paid to play), may decide not to play SC because their first 3 days are not fun. As it's relevant to this thread, this may mean that developers should try as much as they can to make the game more fun at lower levels while maintaining higher level balance.
Anyways, clarify for me if I misunderstood you.
|
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 10:45 Vexx wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 10:30 Ryhn wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 09:56 Vexx wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 08:53 TheDrill wrote:
Look at the lower level leagues. It's all cheese. Unbeatable or not, that's not what your average joe is expecting when they pick up a RTS. Very few RTS have you getting owned within the first 2-4 minutes of the game.
[/QUOTE]
So add in a game type that has a no attack for 6 min rule.
|
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 12:34 guitarizt wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 10:45 Vexx wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 10:30 Ryhn wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 09:56 Vexx wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 08:53 TheDrill wrote:
Look at the lower level leagues. It's all cheese. Unbeatable or not, that's not what your average joe is expecting when they pick up a RTS. Very few RTS have you getting owned within the first 2-4 minutes of the game.
[/QUOTE]
So add in a game type that has a no attack for 6 min rule.[/QUOTE]
This is a solution that has been used in some games, but really it's a bit of a cop-out to avoid having to do any real (and difficult) balance work. It wouldn't work in SC2 either, as zerg would be unfairly punished (being unable to fast expand) and terran unfairly rewarded as they could scan to see what is coming. Terrans tend to work well off of a 1 base play and can prepare a command center in advance to fly to an expand the moment the timer is up.
|
I absolutely love 2vs2, and look forward to testing 3vs3. Sitting on vent playing cooperatively with a buddy gives me the good feelings from the clan days of yore.
However, it seems that arranged parties are matched against random parties, is this correct?
|
On May 31 2010 09:56 Vexx wrote:For example, consider super smash brothers brawl. This is a competitive game with an abundance of local tournaments. I am very good at this game. I can compete with the best of the best. But there is an element of the game's design that discourages me from playing more or even caring about being the best: talented players can make certain characters play in a non-conventional way where they can slide across the maps very quickly while dealing dangerous amounts of damage. They avoid a straight up fight and do what I call "abuse of game mechanics."
I'm going to stop you at the "Competitive" part and ask you this:
Was Super Smash Bros Brawl designed to be a competitive game?
Answer:
No.
Brawl is designed, first and foremost, to be fun. Actually, ALL Smash Bros games have been. Any ability for Smash Bros games to function competitively is pure accident. Or whatever is left in the design tank after designing a fun game.
That items and stages other than Final Destination are the default mode of play in Smash Bros games is no accident.
Now, if you want to run with that analogy still for some reason, then we can ask, is Blizzard designing StarCraft 2 to be a competitive RTS?
I'll leave that answer to you.
|
Russian Federation145 Posts
On May 31 2010 09:56 Vexx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2010 08:53 TheDrill wrote:
You're wrong about casual players improving. I'm sorry to say this, but it needs to be said: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
In my general experience as a league admin of the American Natural Selection community, I can assure you that the players who are filtered by the frustrating game features wouldn't ever come close to succeeding in the competitive scene. I've seen it all first hand. I made the mistake of taking initiative in the dying mod to draft new teams. I helped organize the remaining American competitive NS players to teach the "casuals" how to really play the game. I would venture to say that NS is the hardest game on casuals by far, so those that stick around are the hardiest of the bunch, and yet our initiative failed. We've tried this several times, at the tournament peak even (number of registered 6man teams in CAL was >200), and failed at every turn.
It takes a lot of willpower to improve and significant talent to get to the top. Casual players don't have either by definition. If they had talent, they'd be good at the game and therefore enjoy it. (people always like what they're good at) If they were willing to improve, they wouldn't need the developers to hold their hands for them.
So how are the competitive players different? They have a different attitude about video games in general. The players who are good at one game are most likely to be good at many others. These players aren't a static property of one game. They move around and improve at games where money is present. The prize money up top is what attracts them. That's the meaning of the word professional. As of right now, StarCraft is in a league of its own when it comes to prize money. This attracts the best players such as Idra.
---
You're right if you feel that there has to be a perfect compromise, because the amount of possible compromises is nearly infinite. The chances of someone, who doesn't completely understand the criteria of one of those two sides, of finding that compromise are zero. I have a feeling that you don't completely understand the competitive side of this issue since you're not a competitive player.
Since you don't understand both sides of the compromise, it's best not to try to find it. The best course of action with any game other than SC2 is to appeal to the "casual players."
The best course of action for Blizzard is to appeal to everyone who isn't a casual. That's what the majority of people buying the box are expecting from them. That's what Blizzard is going to need to do to appease Korea. That's the market that no company except Blizzard can reasonably appeal to.
Best of luck.
P.S: Potchip,
@ 3.
Blizzard cares about casual players who stay because those who quit will likely not recommend the game to their friends. This is now in the common sense domain for any company.
(The casuals are also a much larger market than competitive players. At least this is what Blizzard thinks. Blizzard is also extremely greedy for reasons beyond me. They are faced with the choice of making a better competitive game or making more money. They are choosing the $$ option.) Surprise! I'm a competitive player that excels in most of the video games I play and the frustrating experience in some games (SC2 for example) makes me uneager to continue improving or even playing the game. For example, consider super smash brothers brawl. This is a competitive game with an abundance of local tournaments. I am very good at this game. I can compete with the best of the best. But there is an element of the game's design that discourages me from playing more or even caring about being the best: talented players can make certain characters play in a non-conventional way where they can slide across the maps very quickly while dealing dangerous amounts of damage. They avoid a straight up fight and do what I call "abuse of game mechanics." Defeating these players is a question of focused attention and experience. I can beat them but it is not fun in the least to play against them. I have a friend who used to whoop my butt silly in the older gamecube version. He did not purchase the new wii version because of how the new characters play and detract from the good old "standard" fighting system. I would compare this story to SC1 and SC2 where competitive players may decide not to purchase the game because of some sort of cheese. Let's say 6pool 7 reaper in 2v2 or even resource feeding in team games. These players may have the ability to become competitive but they don't find the game interesting when the first 3-5 minutes is about not getting gayed instead of just getting your game going. All this to say that your black and white approach and "general experience" is a load of stupidity because it is very likely that many skilled players are also concerned with fun over frustration. I'm sure top WoW arena players would do just as well in Lineage 2 if they were not discouraged by the amount of XP grind in L2. If you do reply, I hope that it has nothing to do with the semantics of casual and competitive. In case you missed it, my main point is that your opinion on "types of people" is stupid.
The semantics? I'm afraid that the only argument I have is an anecdote, but you can refer to the tl member pain user and ask him why he started playing SC2, his first strategy game, at the top10 platinum level. (guy here http://www.ensl.org/movies/9 ) And you can ask him about the attitude that good players share.
My example also doesn't carry over to console games. I have no experience with consoles or dealing with people who play console games. If you feel that the two can be compared, then your example of you being unwilling to do everything in your power to win proves that you're not a competitive player who is serious about winning.
|
Wow, there is a lot of anger in this thread.
Point 1: Learning Curve
Learning curve really relates to the number of things a person needs to know before attaining particular skill levels in a game. Starcraft already has a fairly rough learning curve. Each race has 10+ units with multiple abilities. Units interract differently, those differences need to be learned.
Cheese adds another learning burden. You need to be able to counter cheese in order to play the game 'normally'. If the number of potential cheeses is 15 or so, lets assume 3 or 4 games per cheese to overcome. Game 1, get cheesed, Game 2, scout attempt counter fail, Game 3, scout attempt different counter fail, Game 4, scout refine build win. With 15 cheeses available that is 50+ games you need to play before you can actually start playing the game properly.
If the learning curve is too high, the game will fail. Chess by example has a relatively low learning curve. There are a few pieces to memorise, a few strategies to understand and only a handful of cheesy openings which are easily countered (it's not real time).
Part 2: Casual Players
Sigh... I still don't understand this iron-clad belief that casual players can't become pros. "Pros wouldn't quit if they lost." Actually, yes they would if they thought the reason they lost was the game was shit. They'd go play a game they thought was less shit and invest their potential-pro skills there. Do you think any of the top SC players would have been pros if their first experiences of SC were wholy negative and there were other options for gaming available. Why are they SC pros and not TA or CS pros... was it because SC was fun and compelling? Cheese != fun. Cheese = lame...
|
The rule sets should definitely be adjusted for each division.
Bronze - No rush maps
Silver - Regular maps, slightly slower speed
Gold and up - Regular
|
balance at higher levels should be the first priority
"casual level balance" is really not balance at all. If the game makes it easier for a player to do something, when the player gets to a higher level, performing the same task will be even easier. There's a million ways to write a huge paragraph about this but I'll not go there.
My main point is that "casual level balance," if such thing exists at all, is a luxury and not a necessity relative to competitive balance.
|
Read this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=163417
Oh look, I totally called it in this thread, months and months ago.
Whos right now? :D. This is a Clear case of casual balance.
Q. There are opinions that the variety in choice of strategies for Terran have decreased due to the recent nerf
A. There were a lot of strategies terrans could use before scouting their opponent. We were planning to decrease the number of possible strategies because we felt they were having a negative effect, and the reaper happened to be problematic in team games so we adjusted the balance with a focus on reapers. In the case of barracks before depot, there were a lot of games that ended before it was even scouted. It didn't happen very often on the pro level, but it was becoming a problem in lower tier play. The main focus is the pro level, but our ultimate goal is for players of all levels to be able to play a fair and balanced game. Barracks first builds were too strong in that regard and created a lot of problems in low level play, which is why we made the adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
