|
Edmon, thanks for stopping by. This is an interesting and (apparently?) contentious topic. It's a shame that most of the posts are landing under the level of the discussion. If you're railing against the OP, trust me, you are operating in the wrong framework. The point of the OP is asking how far you should go to provide fun in your game if it doesn't cost much in taking away value in other areas of fun. (I'm using fun here as a stand-in for the broader concept of why one plays a game. Lots of people here play out of competitive spirit, which is a very different kind of fun than winning BGH ffa with mass BCs.) By design the hypothetical example used poses a problem of nuance and "where to draw the line"; it's not asking whether the philosophy is categorically right or wrong.
I think it's not a great stretch, though the phrasing may not seem quite apt for everyone, to say that the reason we (those who are adamantly competitive about Starcraft) hold this game to be worthy of devotion is because winning requires both adept performance and artistry of play. The fight is dynamic, and often unpredictable, but never incomprehensible, and always exacting. A well executed match is a thing of beauty. The OP suggests that it's possible to retain this sort of gameplay while minimizing gameplay that is unfun to less competitive players. The broader implication of this design goal is to make it as easy as possible for a wide audience to fall into enjoyment of the game. The key point is that it is in the interests of diehard competitive players to have these "unsubstantiated" casual balance changes because they maintain broad support and involvement, something which is absolutely necessary for an enduring competitive scene, especially in a public sense. This is borne out in all the popular sports. Another example where design actively happens (no one "designs" soccer or basketball) with this concept very much in mind is collectible card games with professional players. These games have to be balanced razor sharp to be worth pro competition, and they need to have mass appeal to survive. Magic the Gathering has been around for more than a decade, with an ever-expanding pro scene, thanks to close adherence to the principal described in the OP.
I think the most relevant tension in the proposition is the problem of adding unpredictable interactions, or too much complexity baggage. In all fields of design, one of the fundamental principles is simplicity. By staying as simple as possible, you minimize accidental balance problems. To use the example in the OP, is feedback on overlords too strong in certain situations? Like with DT harass, which also uses the templar tech branch...? Because competitive balance depends on the ability of players to execute precisely, it's hard to imagine exactly how changes in Starcraft affect balance. I think the culture of gaming, now and moving forward, will mirror that of athletic sports; I mean to say that it favours ability and not player-coddling, so strategy and playskill can self-balance. My own opinion is actually near what the ragers are saying, but for different reasons. However, unlike the traditional sports, games are free to be molded, and the opportunity to design for particular goals shouldn't be missed.
In this sense, from the perspective of the designer role, the arrival and subsequent life of a game is almost a performance art. You can't redo Starcraft 2. Because of this, I consider it awfully shortsighted to insist it's exactly to one's own liking, unyielding to the needs of a wider audience. The last thing I want to say is that Starcraft is a robust system. Especially with the ability to patch, it seems highly unlikely you could fundamentally alter the gameplay we love, and love to win at.
|
On May 26 2010 12:54 ImSkeptical wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Op's post makes a lot of sense, and it seems strange that not many people seem to be able to grasp it, arguing directly with the mindset he was addressing as bad. But there is something I think needs to be taken into consideration, and I hope Edmon gets to read this, because I would like to see his thoughts on this.
The underlying assumption, is that the casual gamer, will get 'addicted' and progress to the play to win mindset, one where the concept of balance is just viewed as a mental obstacle to one's own improvement. But does this really happen?
This is only person conjecture, but hopefully it's somewhat compelling if not entirely empirical. By focusing balance to deal with these kind of cheeses, what develops is a kind of psychology where, if you're having trouble with a strategy, what you do is wait for blizzard to fix it. You don't try to get better, you just go, hey, this is 'overpowered' and will be nerfed in the future. Every time I lose to it, its not a real loss. I'm simply going to whine, and then when it gets nerfed the game will be perfect.
But its never going to be perfect because someone just figures out another rush, another cheese. Why? Because certain fundamentals, specifically scouting and solid macro to give you relative timings, as a player you will always have trouble with cheese and all-ins. I don't think a player will develop these skills over time if they are in the mindset where things are 'overpowered'.
So though the sentiment is nice, I don't think balancing on both levels can work. 'Casual' players, if they don't have the willpower or insight of how to think in playing a competitive game with the complexity of Starcraft, are not going to develop it gradually over time, especially not if it seems to be 'fixed' by an external force. They just need to develop a certain level of maturity or openmindness that doesn't really come from directly playing the game.
The concern is valid, but the idea is that all this is invisible to the casual player. He doesn't even think "this is overpowered" precisely because you already "casual nerfed" it -- because the change shouldn't be relevant at higher level play, e.g. the overlord example.
Indeed these players mostly will not become strongly competitive players, but you need them to supply varying levels of interest in the game as a foundation for pro scene longevity. One in ten getting hooked for a year or two is good odds. If three in ten spend sixth months watching tournaments before they move on to something else, that's an important viewership component.
Not trying to be argumentative, just adding a couple things I wanted to touch on. 
|
Casual imbalance arises when countering the 'imba' strategy requires more management than executing it. In the 'casually imbalanced' TvZ bionic, the imbalance arises from two or three unmanaged lurkers being able to take down scores of unmanaged marine medic. The imbalance arises because the sad D+ and below player can't macro and expand and harass while microing MnM, but the zerg can easily let the two lurkers sit there while managing their economy.
Easy solution (from game developers point of view?) Nerf unmicroed lurkers, buff microed lurkers. Problem solved. No damage done to competitive gameplay. In general, make both the strategy and counter-strategy require roughly the same amount of management.
Keep in mind even SC1 was built for the casual gamer, and there's not really any reason competitive gamers are entitled to special treatment.
|
I think really what the OP is talking about is more how a player loses.
Hypothetical SC2 world where there's only T
Situation A) I'm brand new, doing my placements and I get reaper rushed in my first game, and die in the first 4mins. Alright, I start my second and the same thing happens, over and over for 20 games I get reaper rushed.
At this point, the player will most likely quit, since all they see is reaper rushes and has had 20 3minute games where they lose with no room to improve.
Situation B) I'm brand new, doing my placements (again TvT only) and the T macroes, as do I. Game goes on, and say its a 20, 30, 40 min match. The player that macroes better wins.
Say I even go 0-5 in my placements. I can look back on my replays and go through things like production, unit, and income tabs to see differences and see "well it was my 8 SCVs vs his 40SCVs, maybe i need to make more SCVs" or "he expoed like 5 times, maybe I will try making another base"
In situation 1 the bad player doesn't improve. Sure if he wanted to he could go onto a forum and look up how to beat the reaper rush, but most players wont do that, they will just think the game is bad and will leave.
In situation 2, the bad player had long macro games where he got to tech up, and played out games where he won / lost based on mechanics and could definitively see difference in ways to improve.
- - - - -
Cheese does not push players to improve, it pushed them to emulate or leave.
Longer games pushes players to improve, play vs people of their own skill (especially with current match making), or quit (because they aren't having fun anymore).
Really, I just see it as a difference in timing. If I lose at the 5 min mark I just get angry, if I lose at the 40 min mark then I want to know how to get better and improve my play since I played an awesome game.
Losing to reapers is frustrating... having massive BC and Thor Battles are incredibly fun.
Watch Day[9]'s daily where he watches people he knows play 2v2s. Its epic, no cheese, everyone has fun, and people learn to play better... If it was nothing but a cheese fest it would of never been a Day[9] daily.
The game needs to be fun, cheese isn't fun, epic games are.
- - - - -
Not to mention... do you really want people learning to cheese, or do you want them learning to macro... I would rather have our up and coming Idras, TLOs, and WhiteRas start their gaming career trying to improve their mechanics rather then start by improving their cheese until it doesn't work anymore and they get frustrated having to try and learn mechanics v Diamond level players...
|
I'm not a big fan of balancing the game design for all "tiers of play."
A "lower tier of play," or lower level of play is a rather ambiguous phrase anyways, because there's like a million ways to be bad at the game and you can't say which particular one is worse than the other most of the time.
It's hard enough to balance the game for the supposedly highest level of play on its own, there's no point in making the job even harder.
I think the only way that the game should ever be "balanced" for the lower levels of play is through making things easier/harder to do. Like if the current phoenixes was somehow broken, then they could nerf it so that moving shot is still possible but is harder to do, then the Protoss would need more attention to be able to use his phoenixes to be as good as they are now, but when using good micro they would be no different from now... that's the only type of changes that are warranted for the lower levels of play imo, otherwise you're just trying to juggle too many things.
|
As a "qualified" game designer myself I respectfully disagree. I recognize the sentiments, but think that it is exactly the kind of mentality that designs to impossible ends. Rather than go point by point I'll just state generally :
You can't effectively and optimally balance for both extreme and casual - it's for the most part a pipedream and a waste of time. What you should do, is balance for the core, and just make the game FUN for casuals. If a casual player has a host of options, and has fun executing them, you're 75% of the way there. Balance wise, as long as a casual player can think of something that he could have done to win, it doesn't really matter if he thinks everything is "completely equal". All that matters for him is there is something else , within his grasp as a casual player, he could have done better to have maybe won, and thus a reason to play again (assuming we're talking about vs. a similar skill level). It doesn't need to be balanced for casuals, it just needs to give them enough options to exploit to both have fun and understand what they can do better in the next game.
|
On May 26 2010 14:03 Insanious wrote:
I think really what the OP is talking about is more how a player loses.
Hypothetical SC2 world where there's only T
Situation A) I'm brand new, doing my placements and I get reaper rushed in my first game, and die in the first 4mins. Alright, I start my second and the same thing happens, over and over for 20 games I get reaper rushed.
At this point, the player will most likely quit, since all they see is reaper rushes and has had 20 3minute games where they lose with no room to improve.
Situation B) I'm brand new, doing my placements (again TvT only) and the T macroes, as do I. Game goes on, and say its a 20, 30, 40 min match. The player that macroes better wins.
Say I even go 0-5 in my placements. I can look back on my replays and go through things like production, unit, and income tabs to see differences and see "well it was my 8 SCVs vs his 40SCVs, maybe i need to make more SCVs" or "he expoed like 5 times, maybe I will try making another base"
In situation 1 the bad player doesn't improve. Sure if he wanted to he could go onto a forum and look up how to beat the reaper rush, but most players wont do that, they will just think the game is bad and will leave.
In situation 2, the bad player had long macro games where he got to tech up, and played out games where he won / lost based on mechanics and could definitively see difference in ways to improve.
- - - - -
Cheese does not push players to improve, it pushed them to emulate or leave.
Longer games pushes players to improve, play vs people of their own skill (especially with current match making), or quit (because they aren't having fun anymore).
Really, I just see it as a difference in timing. If I lose at the 5 min mark I just get angry, if I lose at the 40 min mark then I want to know how to get better and improve my play since I played an awesome game.
Losing to reapers is frustrating... having massive BC and Thor Battles are incredibly fun.
Watch Day[9]'s daily where he watches people he knows play 2v2s. Its epic, no cheese, everyone has fun, and people learn to play better... If it was nothing but a cheese fest it would of never been a Day[9] daily.
The game needs to be fun, cheese isn't fun, epic games are.
- - - - -
Not to mention... do you really want people learning to cheese, or do you want them learning to macro... I would rather have our up and coming Idras, TLOs, and WhiteRas start their gaming career trying to improve their mechanics rather then start by improving their cheese until it doesn't work anymore and they get frustrated having to try and learn mechanics v Diamond level players...
if they emulate and fail they will figure out how to stop it and improve from there.
|
On May 26 2010 14:19 Sadist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 26 2010 14:03 Insanious wrote:
I think really what the OP is talking about is more how a player loses.
Hypothetical SC2 world where there's only T
Situation A) I'm brand new, doing my placements and I get reaper rushed in my first game, and die in the first 4mins. Alright, I start my second and the same thing happens, over and over for 20 games I get reaper rushed.
At this point, the player will most likely quit, since all they see is reaper rushes and has had 20 3minute games where they lose with no room to improve.
Situation B) I'm brand new, doing my placements (again TvT only) and the T macroes, as do I. Game goes on, and say its a 20, 30, 40 min match. The player that macroes better wins.
Say I even go 0-5 in my placements. I can look back on my replays and go through things like production, unit, and income tabs to see differences and see "well it was my 8 SCVs vs his 40SCVs, maybe i need to make more SCVs" or "he expoed like 5 times, maybe I will try making another base"
In situation 1 the bad player doesn't improve. Sure if he wanted to he could go onto a forum and look up how to beat the reaper rush, but most players wont do that, they will just think the game is bad and will leave.
In situation 2, the bad player had long macro games where he got to tech up, and played out games where he won / lost based on mechanics and could definitively see difference in ways to improve.
- - - - -
Cheese does not push players to improve, it pushed them to emulate or leave.
Longer games pushes players to improve, play vs people of their own skill (especially with current match making), or quit (because they aren't having fun anymore).
Really, I just see it as a difference in timing. If I lose at the 5 min mark I just get angry, if I lose at the 40 min mark then I want to know how to get better and improve my play since I played an awesome game.
Losing to reapers is frustrating... having massive BC and Thor Battles are incredibly fun.
Watch Day[9]'s daily where he watches people he knows play 2v2s. Its epic, no cheese, everyone has fun, and people learn to play better... If it was nothing but a cheese fest it would of never been a Day[9] daily.
The game needs to be fun, cheese isn't fun, epic games are.
- - - - -
Not to mention... do you really want people learning to cheese, or do you want them learning to macro... I would rather have our up and coming Idras, TLOs, and WhiteRas start their gaming career trying to improve their mechanics rather then start by improving their cheese until it doesn't work anymore and they get frustrated having to try and learn mechanics v Diamond level players... if they emulate and fail they will figure out how to stop it and improve from there.
and someone just missed the whole point of my post...
Look at bronze level players, ever played any? 99.999999% of the time, they just try to cheese you.
- 6 pool
- 7 rax reapers
- 9 gate chrono boost zealot
- VR rush
- Banshee rush
etc...
Why? because its all they ever experience down there. People who have learned to macro move up and away, people who only cheese either: cheese well and leave, or cheese poorly and continue to try and perfect their cheese so they can leave bronze.
Heck, in D9D #100 Day[9] talks about this mentality. How he would constantly just try and use his "trick" to win. This is what bronze level players (not all, but a lot) are trying to do.
Now, if say there was no way to cheese anyone... ever... and you HAD to macro (yes i know, a huge exageration and would make the game a lot less exciting but just an example). You would see the people with the best skills rise up, and the lower skilled players be at the bottom due to mechanics.
As well, players would continue to hone their mechanics simply due to:
- Use
- Experiencing better mechanics and emulating them
This would turn their ladder play into practice for their mechanics, which would in turn move them up the ladder as they get better.
- - - -
Now, I'm not saying (and neither is the OP) that all cheese is bad... No. It definitely has its uses (so you don't have a Z just make like 40 drones for the first 10 mins then out macro you instantly...). But it shouldn't be the end all be all of low end play.
Aggression is good:
- timing pushes
- early aggression
- drops
- nidus
- DTs
etc... all good.
What is bad is losing to something that makes the loser:
a) not want to play anymore
b) not think that he needed to play better to win
and
c) hinders the time investment in mechanics.
- - - -
Aggression is not bad, early aggression is not bad, but inhibiting a players growth is bad. So the aggression either:
a) needs to be part of an overall strat that leads to something and not an all in (6 pool v. TLO's TvZ build)
b) needs to only a tiny bit harder to defend then to execute... so that you don't end up with players quitting over reaper harass because they just don't know what to do... that with a little experimentation they can easily figure out the counter.
These plays should be a threat, should be effective, but shouldn't just shut players down that don't log onto TL to read the counter...
|
I dont get what are you people are talking about. In your examples there are no casuals. There are just stupid players.
Look at chess!
How many times you can beat a guy using the exact same tactic in lets say 15 moves (i suck at chess)?
a) everytime = a dumbass with an IQ<100
b) 2-3 times till the dude gets the hang of it and its able to defend = a good player
c) 1 time and the dude gets ur tactic and is able not only to defend but to also outsmart your strategy and beat you = a very smart person
Same thing is applied to starcraft. If you get beat every time by a bancheese cloak rush and in the 3rd game (at most) it still hasnt occured to you that you should build a turret then you sir are pretty much an idiot....
Im proud to say im a casual gamer. For me casual doesnt mean idiot as some people on these forums suggest in their posts. Im casual because i play 5 games a week cuz i dont have time for more. That doesnt mean im retarded and lost 30 consecutive games to cannon/proxy gate/reaper/6pool whatever rush. That also doesnt mean Blizz has to fix any of those cheeses. Blizz must cater to the Intelligent player not the Retarded player - that would be a good way to put it.
Also to the OP. Any winning strategy done against a casual is also by a casual player. I really dont think whitera is still in bronze and proxy gates casual players.... So if you nerf the strat you win the retarded player who lost to it but lose the intelligent player who did it and can defend to it in the first place.
|
OK, i think I would add one term to the conversation which has been lacking.
This term is prevalent in all CCGs (that I know of).
NPE = Negative Play Experience
No game needs these. This above all else, is the most important aspect of any game's success. Think WOW, magic the gathering etc. As much as everyone likes to bitch about WOW, it is a far more successful game than SC ever was and SCII will ever be. It isn't better, but it is more successful.
Cheese almost always leads to NPE's, games where the immediate reaction is: "WTF?? You can do that, oh my god this game is lame."
If a player has to look up a website in order to work out how to beat a cheese, it probably shouldn't be in the game. Not all players will go to that effort, especially if they have only been playing for a while and haven't got an emotional investment in the game yet. Sure after 100-200 games, they might, but after 5... If they can survive 100 games without a serious NPE, that player may be the next pro because they have developed the patience and interest. If they get cheesed in their first 5 games, SCII will appear to be a stupid game full of dumb tactics. Why would I bother making the investment of time?
The point (which has been raised already), if the cheese requires less skill than the counter then it is not good for the game. If the cheese wasn't balanced at the pro level, I'm sure everyone would be complaining, yet not being balanced at the intermediate level makes everyone whiners... way to go with double-standards...
|
On May 26 2010 15:07 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2010 14:19 Sadist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 26 2010 14:03 Insanious wrote:
I think really what the OP is talking about is more how a player loses.
Hypothetical SC2 world where there's only T
Situation A) I'm brand new, doing my placements and I get reaper rushed in my first game, and die in the first 4mins. Alright, I start my second and the same thing happens, over and over for 20 games I get reaper rushed.
At this point, the player will most likely quit, since all they see is reaper rushes and has had 20 3minute games where they lose with no room to improve.
Situation B) I'm brand new, doing my placements (again TvT only) and the T macroes, as do I. Game goes on, and say its a 20, 30, 40 min match. The player that macroes better wins.
Say I even go 0-5 in my placements. I can look back on my replays and go through things like production, unit, and income tabs to see differences and see "well it was my 8 SCVs vs his 40SCVs, maybe i need to make more SCVs" or "he expoed like 5 times, maybe I will try making another base"
In situation 1 the bad player doesn't improve. Sure if he wanted to he could go onto a forum and look up how to beat the reaper rush, but most players wont do that, they will just think the game is bad and will leave.
In situation 2, the bad player had long macro games where he got to tech up, and played out games where he won / lost based on mechanics and could definitively see difference in ways to improve.
- - - - -
Cheese does not push players to improve, it pushed them to emulate or leave.
Longer games pushes players to improve, play vs people of their own skill (especially with current match making), or quit (because they aren't having fun anymore).
Really, I just see it as a difference in timing. If I lose at the 5 min mark I just get angry, if I lose at the 40 min mark then I want to know how to get better and improve my play since I played an awesome game.
Losing to reapers is frustrating... having massive BC and Thor Battles are incredibly fun.
Watch Day[9]'s daily where he watches people he knows play 2v2s. Its epic, no cheese, everyone has fun, and people learn to play better... If it was nothing but a cheese fest it would of never been a Day[9] daily.
The game needs to be fun, cheese isn't fun, epic games are.
- - - - -
Not to mention... do you really want people learning to cheese, or do you want them learning to macro... I would rather have our up and coming Idras, TLOs, and WhiteRas start their gaming career trying to improve their mechanics rather then start by improving their cheese until it doesn't work anymore and they get frustrated having to try and learn mechanics v Diamond level players... if they emulate and fail they will figure out how to stop it and improve from there. and someone just missed the whole point of my post... Look at bronze level players, ever played any? 99.999999% of the time, they just try to cheese you. - 6 pool - 7 rax reapers - 9 gate chrono boost zealot - VR rush - Banshee rush etc... Why? because its all they ever experience down there. People who have learned to macro move up and away, people who only cheese either: cheese well and leave, or cheese poorly and continue to try and perfect their cheese so they can leave bronze. Heck, in D9D #100 Day[9] talks about this mentality. How he would constantly just try and use his "trick" to win. This is what bronze level players (not all, but a lot) are trying to do. Now, if say there was no way to cheese anyone... ever... and you HAD to macro (yes i know, a huge exageration and would make the game a lot less exciting but just an example). You would see the people with the best skills rise up, and the lower skilled players be at the bottom due to mechanics. As well, players would continue to hone their mechanics simply due to: - Use - Experiencing better mechanics and emulating them This would turn their ladder play into practice for their mechanics, which would in turn move them up the ladder as they get better. - - - - Now, I'm not saying (and neither is the OP) that all cheese is bad... No. It definitely has its uses (so you don't have a Z just make like 40 drones for the first 10 mins then out macro you instantly...). But it shouldn't be the end all be all of low end play. Aggression is good: - timing pushes - early aggression - drops - nidus - DTs etc... all good. What is bad is losing to something that makes the loser: a) not want to play anymore b) not think that he needed to play better to win and c) hinders the time investment in mechanics. - - - - Aggression is not bad, early aggression is not bad, but inhibiting a players growth is bad. So the aggression either: a) needs to be part of an overall strat that leads to something and not an all in (6 pool v. TLO's TvZ build) b) needs to only a tiny bit harder to defend then to execute... so that you don't end up with players quitting over reaper harass because they just don't know what to do... that with a little experimentation they can easily figure out the counter. These plays should be a threat, should be effective, but shouldn't just shut players down that don't log onto TL to read the counter...
i could just as easily suggest someone cheesed to macro better (IE just making an expansion and pumping drones etc and just hoping you dont attack)
the argument is dumb. At low level people suck period. Everyone sucks to a degree when they start out. Casual people will quit anyway unless they have the type of personality not to quit. Theyve already bought the game so their money has been invested anyway. BW lasted for a long time even though the learning curve is hard. Theres no reason to believe SC2 wont be the same way if we leave it the fuck alone.
Also "cheese" doesnt lead to negative play experience at all. If it isnt cheese that kills you other shit will. The best way to solve this is to have people play other newbs and thats the whole point of AMM. Messing with the game isnt necessary at all. At the absolute most you could use the neutral building block to prevent rushing like they do in the practice matches.
|
@sadyque so your saying you beat 7 rax reaper in 2 - 3 times while:
1) never asking for help
2) never looking up a counter
3) never seen it countered in a VoD / stream
4) not coming from an rts background (so no SC, no WC3, no C&C, no Supreme commander, etc...)
5) Being your first say 10 games
Casuals don't go to TL and look for help, they don't watch replays of other players, they don't watch streams...
I would be hard pressed to see you play say League of Legends without reading the rules or anything vs. Eve.
Eve is the worst character in the game, but DESTROYS noobs. Why? Because she can cloak and noobs don't see that you need to buy wards to uncloak Eve.
Players have enough on their mind:
- learning about items
- learning their own skills
- microing their hero
to worry about buying wards to defeat Eve.
Everyday in the league of legends forums there are posts about how OP Eve is and such... riot games said "we will remake eve, she isn't fun to play Vs. and isn't used in competative play, bad design"
Look at cheese:
- Do you see cheese in the top top top players play? NO.
- Do you see early aggression that moves into standard play? Yes
- Do you see 7 rax reaper? No
- Do you see say 11 rax reaper? Yes
- 7 rax reaper = cheese
- 11 rax reaper = agressive
If somehow reapers couldn't come out till say 10 food, without changing anything else... what would you see?
- less reaper rushes
- same play from pros...
This is a BAD fix to the problem, and should never be implemented... but its just an example of something that would leave pro play unchanged and fix lower play.
If it hurts noobs, and isn't used by pros why have it in the game?
Also "cheese" doesnt lead to negative play experience at all. If it isnt cheese that kills you other shit will. The best way to solve this is to have people play other newbs and thats the whole point of AMM. Messing with the game isnt necessary at all. At the absolute most you could use the neutral building block to prevent rushing like they do in the practice matches.
You assume a loss = NPE thats wrong...
I can have A LOT of fun losing.
But losing to cheese is NEVER fun.
Cheese is NPE, because its never fun
But losing so say, BCs and Thors vs my Ultra BLords is hella fun...
|
On May 26 2010 15:33 Insanious wrote:@sadyque so your saying you beat 7 rax reaper in 2 - 3 times while: 1) never asking for help 2) never looking up a counter 3) never seen it countered in a VoD / stream 4) not coming from an rts background (so no SC, no WC3, no C&C, no Supreme commander, etc...) 5) Being your first say 10 games Casuals don't go to TL and look for help, they don't watch replays of other players, they don't watch streams... I would be hard pressed to see you play say League of Legends without reading the rules or anything vs. Eve. Eve is the worst character in the game, but DESTROYS noobs. Why? Because she can cloak and noobs don't see that you need to buy wards to uncloak Eve. Players have enough on their mind: - learning about items - learning their own skills - microing their hero to worry about buying wards to defeat Eve. Everyday in the league of legends forums there are posts about how OP Eve is and such... riot games said "we will remake eve, she isn't fun to play Vs. and isn't used in competative play, bad design" Look at cheese: - Do you see cheese in the top top top players play? NO. - Do you see early aggression that moves into standard play? Yes - Do you see 7 rax reaper? No - Do you see say 11 rax reaper? Yes - 7 rax reaper = cheese - 11 rax reaper = agressive If somehow reapers couldn't come out till say 10 food, without changing anything else... what would you see? - less reaper rushes - same play from pros... This is a BAD fix to the problem, and should never be implemented... but its just an example of something that would leave pro play unchanged and fix lower play. If it hurts noobs, and isn't used by pros why have it in the game? Show nested quote +Also "cheese" doesnt lead to negative play experience at all. If it isnt cheese that kills you other shit will. The best way to solve this is to have people play other newbs and thats the whole point of AMM. Messing with the game isnt necessary at all. At the absolute most you could use the neutral building block to prevent rushing like they do in the practice matches. You assume a loss = NPE thats wrong... I can have A LOT of fun losing. But losing to cheese is NEVER fun. Cheese is NPE, because its never fun But losing so say, BCs and Thors vs my Ultra BLords is hella fun...
for a while. Newbs have always loved lategame which is why fastest maps were always relatively popular. They want to use capital ships. Let them play amongst themselves. Dont ruin the game for them.
Like I said before, limiting strategies is stupid. Stick to AMM. People who play a few games and quit or dont know to look online dont matter much anyway. You can basically find anything on the internet today. If they cant figure out counters to cheese by looking on google its their own fault for being lazy assholes.
|
United States42638 Posts
There is no place for the casual gamer in a strategy game. A strategy game is a decision making game in which good decisions are rewarded and bad decisions are punished. A casual player doesn't know the difference between the two and will make bad decisions. If you fail to punish him for this then there really isn't any strategy, it's just multiplayer sim city.
The idea that a strategy game should reward someone who doesn't know what they're doing is absurd.
|
@Insanious are you saying the person doing 6 rax reaper rush dreamed up the strategy as part of their 'casual' play?
Wait, they read the build somewhere, implemented it, and found it working on lower tier players.
Now look at the ones that got cheesed and lost. Using your logic they: didn't look up strategies, just kept bang their head on the same wall again and again and wonder why the wall is so hard, and somehow they don't deserve it?
Those that cheese will quickly rise up in ranks until they are no longer competent ie their cheese fail badly. The scenario some describe where in lower leagues everyone cheese is a contradiction.
I cannot believe how many of you missed sadist's point. Have you even tried a reaper rush or cheese as you describe it? It is not the easy button, if someone makes it work, which entiles some level of multi-tasking, that someone is definately better than the one who is unable to scout/counter it. Try it then report back how easy it is to do. It is actually NOT, and only reason it works is because you are playing way worse players.
|
On May 26 2010 07:26 Edmon wrote:
The point I am trying to make is this. A casual player could be the next WhiteRa or Sen. You just don't know. But if they lose 10 times to a cheese, they aren't going to think "well, I need to L2P". They will just leave because they think the game is shit and your game will die. Had they stayed, prehaps they would have become great. But they didn't because the cheese has killed the game for them early, when they are still deciding "Do I like this game?".
First I'd like to say, overall good write up, but I think you have a fundamental flaw with everything cause of whats quoted. Casual players, are not really what it entails, a casual player can have any kind of mind set, if someone loses 10 games in a row and quits, then that's not really a player who is worth more than the 50$ he paid for the game. So basically you are encouraging them to make changes based upon a group that lacks the basic knowledge of the game/fundamentals. Anyone else aside from this will do something to help prevent against said cheese. A "casual" player like myself will not lose to cheese 10 games in a row because I'd have either kept playing to counter it, or found an external source to teach myself whats necessary. Pros will most definitely continue on playing after 1, possibly even 10 loses to cheese, and are then vigilant to implement the discovered rush counters into their strategy if needed. That is why this is a strategy game. Strategy is always not so apparent, sometimes you have to find the strengths and weaknesses yourself.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
The point I am trying to make is this. A casual player could be the next WhiteRa or Sen. You just don't know. But if they lose 10 times to a cheese, they aren't going to think "well, I need to L2P". They will just leave because they think the game is shit and your game will die. Had they stayed, prehaps they would have become great. But they didn't because the cheese has killed the game for them early, when they are still deciding "Do I like this game?".
This is wrong. The next WhiteRa or Sen is a special type of person that wishes to improve. From the beginning. A casual player that is carefully nurtured might become a B+ on iCCup, but that's his limit, climbing higher requires pretty special traits in a character. If you have those traits, you will learn quickly and will be able to see the sugar of the game from the first match. If you don't, no amount of training will make you a grandiose player, never. You might become an equivalent of "proleague macro protoss" who is ridiculously boring to watch, but are those really needed?
|
I have no intention of reading all 7 pages, so apologies if this has already been said.
@OP:
A casual player could be the next WhiteRa or Sen. I have to disagree with this. A casual player will never become the next WhiteRa. Why? Because they're casual players.
What you call a casual I call a scrub. They're players that will NEVER EVER get good because they can't accept the fact they're bad, and that silly things like 6 pool, mass roach etc etc can and WILL work over and over unless properly countered. They call those things OP, cheese, or, their favourite, "cheap". They will refuse to play against anyone who uses these strats if they can (or make up rules about using them - No Rush zero clutter anyone?) and ragequit when they're beaten by them.
Then there's the hard core crowd, or the people who "play to win". They find a game that interests them and is hard (e.g. SC:BW), and play it until they're really good at it. They don't call things that beat them cheese, or cheap. They find ways to beat it. Or they abuse it themselves. These are the kind of players that become WhiteRa's. They're the kind of players that clock 1000+ hours on a single game.
The scrubs will ALWAYS find something to whine about. You cannot please them. It's simply impossible. If it's not rushes, it's X unit is OP, or Y race is OP, or Z strategy is OP.
The hardcores are the players who are still playing when there's barley 200 people online at once. They're the crowd you want to please.
SC2 is doing the best thing you really can do, and that's letting the scrubs play against themselves, instead of putting them against good players that would smash them.
|
On May 26 2010 11:53 NicolBolas wrote:Let's simplify the discussion and say that skill at a game is a single, quantifiable value. And let's say that the skill ceiling (the point at which no more skill is possible) is 50.
I actually just recently, a few weeks ago, brought up the quantified skill concept up on a Dawn of War 2 forum. However, I interpret it somewhat differently (and go from 0 to 100 xD).
Balancing for every skill level is rather impossible. Nearly always you are going to have strategies, offensive or defensive, that are more effective at a certain skill level than the counter is at that skill level. It's a basic byproduct of asymmetric factions and more (or, read: depth) as well as emphasizing skill AND strategy rather than just skill.
Anyway, this is the most idealized of idealized viewpoints, but it's useful for considering a few basic concepts:
1. It's ok for strategies to require less skill to execute than their counters at lower skill levels because of expectations of reasonable player growth.
2. A target for reasonable player growth must be defined (implicitly, encouragement for players to reach this should be enacted; challenges, leagues, group replay sessions, etc... are all steps in the right direction; it's the ultimate hope that players will look towards a league like TL)- for a game like SC2, ideal target should be at the point where dexterity becomes a serious hindrance, which seems to be Diamond league more or less (plenty of people that got in from cheesing that quickly get knocked-down, but as with TrueSkill in DoW 2, I'd allow the system at least 100 games per user to sort that out)
3. The ability of a strategy to scale with skill is just as important as the skill scaling of the counter
Putting these together, consider two players of skill 25 (out of 100). Player 1's strategy is superior at this skill level. Player 2 loses, but watches the replay, and realizes what he needs to do to counter the strategy. In doing so, he raises his his skill to 26. Skill 26 can counter this skill 25 strategy. But at first glance, this seems imbalanced, because now we see that it require sa skill 26 player to counter a skill 25 strategy. But does this hold for all skill levels, that this strategy will always require a better player to counter it?
Possibly. But it depends on three things (again, somewhat idealized, but the basic theory can be snatched out and is rather applicable)-
1. Skill Scaling Ratio. That is, the rate at which the skill of the strategy scales with its counter. So if we look at our skill 25 player's strategy, and we say that skill 25 is the lowest skill required to successfully execute the strategy (the Skill Floor), then if as skill 26 he uses this against another skill 26 player, will it work? If the skill scaling ratio is linear, then yes. Linear is pretty much 1:1. In fact, if we ever detect linear or better scaling, we need to immediately move to #2 here because we could have a serious issue. But if it scales less than linear (<1:1), then we are uncertain of the outcome of the skill 26 battle. We will need to do the math.
Consider that at skill 25, the relative skill of the countering player is actually 24.5 in relation to the strategy (relative to the skill of the opponent; thus, we are saying that the effective skill of a countering player of skill 25 is 24.5 when facing the strategy). If the counter scales at a rate of 1 then a skill 26 player using the counter will relatively be a skill 25.5 player. This would then make sense why a skill 26 countering player can beat a skill 25 executing player (relative skill of 25.5 > 25). Consider that if the strategy scales at a rate of .5 (so that a skill 26 executing player would be of relative scale 25.5- yes, the strategy would actually drop the relative skill of the player using it beyond skill 25), then at skill 26 both players will be equal. However, if the strategy scales worse (< .5) then at skill 26 and higher the countering player will win at skill 26 or higher. If the strategy scales better (> .5 but < 1) then it will take more skill levels for the two to converge. If we say that the strategy scales at a rate of .75, a battle between two skill 26 players will give us relative skill levels of 25.5 and 25.75 so the executing player will win, but when we move to skill 27 then relative skills will both be 26.5 and beyond that the counter will prevail.
2. Skill Ceiling. This is the second part of the above equation. Most strategies run into a wall at some point where skill no longer impacts them. This, my friends, is how the vast majority of cheese works, and is generally why it is considered cheese. Cheese tends to have a relatively low skill ceiling. Counters to cheese may also have relatively low skill ceilings, but typically they have higher skill floors (something I'll address a bit later). Nonetheless, once the skill ceiling is reached (generally well below the pro level for cheese) then the situation is the same for all skill levels above those ceilings. Note that just because something can be reliably countered does not mean it always will be, and that's where luck comes in.
But anyway, back to the above example. So if the skill scaling ratio is equal, then the first question is if the strategy and counter have skill ceilings. If they do, then is the skill ceiling of the strategy lower than that of the counter? If not, then we can flag the strategy as overpowered pretty immediately, since this means the strategy should never be counterable. If the skill scaling ratio is greater than linear, then we do the same. However, if we find the skill ceiling of the strategy to be lower than that of the counter, we look to see if the skill levels ever converge (specifically, because while the strategy gains relative skill at a superior rate, its counter still gains skill up until the ceiling; if the strategy stops gaining skill before the counter does, then the counter can eventually overtake the strategy unless it hits its skill ceiling before it does). If they do, then the strategy is usually fine, but we will want to check it against our skill target to make sure that it's not over it; if it is, we'll have to really consider that while the strategy is counterable, it will take players of great skill, skill that we are not confident our average player can train to without some talent or a massive time investment that goes well above and beyond what we expect, and we should consider it a potential imbalance and issue (at the same time, we'll want to look at what players at, near, below, etc... our target do- possibly they start QQing, but given a couple of weeks or a month, do they eventually raise themself to the skill they need? Do we find that most CAN do this?). We'll also want to obviously check that the convergence happens at some point below 100, so that it is humanly possible (in the real world, this is significantly tougher to verify). If the skill ceilings are equal, then by definition of the skill scaling ratio being linear or higher then the strategy will not be counterable and is a balance problem.
If the skill scaling ratio is less than linear, our concerns are similar to the above. Is the skill ceiling of the strategy lower than the counter? If yes, then does the convergence happen before/when the skill ceiling of the counter is hit? If yes, does the convergence happen below skill 100? Below our target? If those are both yeses, then great the strategy is fine. If not, we have some kind of a problem. If the skill ceilings are equal, then we just need to ensure the convergence happens before the ceiling is hit (we must also consider our target and etc). If the skill ceiling of the strategy is higher, then we have a situation like we had when the skill scaling ratio was linear or greater than linear, simply that the roles are reversed.
3. Skill Floors. These are the minimum skill levels required to successfully execute a strategy or counter. Besides from providing bases for scaling, they are also important because they convey to us when strategies and counters come into play. As well, some counters may be superior to the strategies they counter always, from the second they come into play, but their skill floors are higher than that of the strategy. For example, a skill 25 strategy may require a skill 30 counter. Note that in our previous example, skill 27 would be the skill floor the counter the skill 25 strategy that scales at .75.
We can see from those three things how we can leverage this skill quantification to spot imbalances, which is great. But what we're interested in for this thread is to decide when strategies pose a serious issue to the game. We already touched on the target and the impact of skill ceilings on that. Thus, we will discuss more the lower skill areas.
Skill floors are big for this. Cheeses tend to have lower skill floors than their counters (but as mentioned, they also tend to scale worse with skill and/or have much lower skill ceilings than their counters). For starting players, this means that immediately there are a lot of strategies that just can't be countered until a certain skill level is hit. The point of this thread is to highlight this issue. However, I think when we study the majority of cheeses that can successfully be executed at low skill levels (which is all we should be concerned about; otherwise we need to be concerned about our matchmaking system), we can find that the skill floor for countering them is not too much higher and quite achievable by all players.
As we find this, it should then become the point of our game to prepare players for this and to raise their skill levels to those floors before they hop online. Tutorials, campaigns, challenges, AI opponents, etc... can all do this. Thus, this should be our preferred solution, because not only do we subvert the issues that this thread brings up by taking this route, but we also get more players into the meat of our competitive game from the start (they can try cheeses themselves and start to develop their core game).
It might then, for example, be our goal to get players to skill 25 and we don't have to worry about any issues below there.
Now, of course, as mentioned in reality the ideal, quantified skill system breaks down. Scaling can vary and is not necessarily consistent, strategies/counters may have multiple ceilings and multiple floors, skill itself is relative and a player that learns nothing and does nothing new can actually have his/her skill drop but at the same time this may drop the skill floor for strategies and counters, players may not play up to their skill level, players may not be consistent in their skill level, etc... As well, skill itself is a composite value and in reality players are going to push specific skills in response to specific stimuli and thus two "skill 25" players are actually quite different and we might have to consider one of those players "skill 28" for using one strategy while the other is "skill 22" for the counter, before even considering the relationship between the counter and the tactic. I'm sure you guys can fill in many other realities as well.
But, the basic concepts that we feel like all players can rise to a certain level of skill and proficiency and that in order to allow that to happen our game needs to provide training of some kind to new players to rise above cheeses (or at least be able to get them to a point to where they see a light at the end of the tunnel against them- they see where they need to work to even if they can't quite reach it yet). Basically, the training our game offers determines its accessibility, rather than having our game be balanced particularly for those skill ranges. At the same time, we can determine and convey when we feel that various strategies are reasonably counterable and can determine when to instruct our player base to L2P.
The main difference between this viewpoint and that of the OP is the skill expectation. The OP wishes to emphasize all skill levels, while this post prefers to ease the learning curve through other means and emphasize achieving the highest skill level possible for most players and to focus on issues that crop up there (again though, SC2 is meant to be, or claimed to be, an eSport, and thus the foremost focus needs to be on the highest levels, because when those are thriving, videos, replays, etc... filter down and they fuel excitement for the game and can also spark improvements in lower-level play).
And for those who simply don't care to learn much at all... SC2 vanilla is not the game for them. UMS, Coop v AI, BGH, etc... might be part of the package that makes it worthwhile for them anyway though. But 1v1 MP is supposed to be competitive- there are some requirements that come with that turf.
And on a side note, it's quite notable that in Dawn of War 2, the most popular race is Space Marines. SM are the most popular race not because they are overpowered, not because most people prefer their gameplay style over that of other races, but rather simply because Space Marines are the most popular Warhammer 40,000 race and Dawn of War 2 draws a big playerbase not just on its own merits but also from fans of 40k. Many such 40k fans are what I think this thread would consider casual players. Nonetheless, many go on to become quite decent players. For such players that choose Space Marines, in online play they are immediately beset with the issue that early Tier 1 Space Marines have a very tough time against races like Orks and Tyranids which can bring serious melee threats to bear during that time frame. Dealing with this as SM has a much higher skill floor than leveraging the melee does for the other races. However, as mentioned many casuals learn to cope with this pretty quickly and adapt. This situation is, while not cheese per se, it's quite similar since the very first engagement (which typically is just a minute or two into the game, if not faster) of this can cost the SM the game (in the very apparent way that the other player gains total map control and can sit outside your base until T2 rapidly rears its head and vehicles are knocking at the SM's doorstep while the SM has no reliable AT). Nonetheless, as mentioned, most players overcome this (side note to the side note, all-melee swamping against SM converges against SMs' counter at a roughly low-mid skill level so as to become almost cheese-worthy while a balanced melee threat is generally standard play and scales well with skill on both sides and converges quite nicely at higher-level play). Different game, but similar issue and even less help with the learning curve than SC2 is planning to offer.
|
This thread is REALLY starting to push my nervers.
Can we replace the words "Casual Player" with "Bad Players" in this thread? Because that is what it is, people are making casual players out to be compete idiots with no ability to improve themselves, I don't get to play this game as often as I want to but that doesn't mean I get frustrated after every game and do nothing to improve if I lose to a rush. If someone loses 10 games in a row to the same strategy without improvement to people in their own league then they are definitely over ranked and should move down a tier till they get better.
With the league system, if you are playing in Bronze/Silver/Gold then it doesn't take that much to beat people using rushes because they people doing them aren't that good either usually it's just changes in build order, different units, small things like that at such a noob level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
