|
This is something that has interested me for a while now and it has to do with something very specific to Starcraft 2. Even other Blizzard games don't suffer from as much fear and anticipation of the 'next game' as Starcraft 2 is capable of generating. Why is that?
Well, I have a theory or rather, several pieces of information that look very neat together.
Keep in mind while reading this that I don't think the game needs to change. The game is teaching me patience. Huge quantities of patience. Sometimes I fall apart after just a few games and sometimes I can go all night. If you want to know how to avoid Tilt, you have to know why it happens. Being aware of each of these factors can allow you to consciously direct your mind away from certain lines of thought. The other player is not a cheating bastard. The units are not imbalanced.
I will list a few characteristics of other games which are present to help players deal with losing and encourage them to come back into the game.
1.To the victor go the spoils...and a little something for the loser too.
In Diablo 2, Call of Duty (pretty much all of the recent ones), and any one of a list of recent games there is a particular reward simply for playing. Even Team Fortress 2 rewards you for just staying in the game with regular drops so long as you're contributing a kill once in a while.
World of Warcraft is perhaps the apex of this idea. Even into the late game it is very difficult to just 'die completely'. You can't ever lose everything you owned from death and even if you die, you still gain a bit of experience. Starcraft 2 is very 'one or the other'. Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground.
2.Defeat costs nothing.
There is a certain creativity to assembling a functional base and organizing a strategy. If it works, it is the best feeling in the world. If it doesn't, it can feel like an indictment of your creativity and flexibility as a player. The 'replay' function feels like a looming weight hanging over your head, ready to show your every failing.
If you lose in Team Fortress or even World of Warcraft, you can quickly slip back to the situation you were in and try a new tactic. Starcraft doesn't allow you to do this. Every game will be completely different and losing costs you the entire build-up to the situation you were in.
3.Failure is a private thing.
Nobody can see how many times you've had your face ground into the dust at the click of a single button in Diablo 2. Win/Loss records are private in Team Fortress 2. World of Warcraft won't give away how many games you've lost in a row. You can be TERRIBLE and people will still play with you even if you suck miserably.
Starcraft has these right out there in public. Every crushing defeat is there to be mocked by the public at large.
4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
5.If I'm not winning then I can just go hang with friends! (this section is temporary until chat rooms are implemented)
Starcraft 2 is not a social game right now. It's a game of strict combat. You can't just sit and observe others playing or converse with them in large part.
The Public Test Realms allowed players to interact and to gather up a group of people to just come and enjoy watching another player's game. It was huge fun sitting and casting games while they were going on, describing the tactics and going over each element. You learn a lot from it. It's also very friendly.
This friendly interaction takes the competition down a notch and encourages experimentation and exchange of ideas. It makes players feel less isolated with their failures if they can head into a chatroom and say 'Damn, I screwed up'.
6.Losing requires no loss of pride.
Starcraft 2 requires you to surrender. No other major multi-player game I can think of off the top of my head except perhaps Warcraft 3 requires a surrender button to end the game quickly. You are either killed or you win. Surrender is a very powerful idea. It acknowledges defeat so complete that you don't even want to see the end of the battle.
This surrender is not just the loss of your base but of pride and of the effort you put in. In Starcraft 2 you can continue to play after the point you have been beaten, but the only reason to do so is to make the other player hate you.
--------------------------------------
Taken individually none of these things would make a player feel particularly uncomfortable but together they can add up to a sports event level feeling of pressure to perform. There are plenty of threads on how to 'deal' with Tilt but not many on why tilt happens so heavily in SC2. I figured the information might be helpful. None of these things is BAD for the game. This game will teach you not to fear failing. It just takes time. {edit to remove statements about chess}
|
Every game will be completely different and losing costs you the entire build-up to the situation you were in.
This is what makes this game so difficult, really. It's kind of like life, you can never be prepared for everything. The game is very bittersweet, though. Immense satisfaction upon victory, as it is the culmination of you focus, skill, planning whereas defeat is sometimes the worst because a single mistake can potentially lose you the game.
|
"Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground. "
Blizzard does award points for losses, hence the point inflation, in an attempt to reward players for losses as well. Is it effective? Probably not since I still usually hate myself after losing.
|
Mostly agree I suppose, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "God is touchable" point.
Noobs aren't going to be killing the TLO's of Call of Duty. Ever.
And if they did, it would be like a noob killing one zergling, but losing 50 - still not a shot in hell of victory.
Hopefully the social aspect is improved with chat rooms and group replays.
|
On January 03 2011 17:08 o29 wrote:
"Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground. "
Blizzard does award points for losses, hence the point inflation, in an attempt to reward players for losses as well. Is it effective? Probably not since I still usually hate myself after losing.
The point inflation still only comes into effect when a player wins games. If you go 0-100, all the bonus pool in the world won't do you any good.
I think this point holds water
|
In tournament chess, no one actually gets checkmated. People resign just like in Starcraft. I think every point you listed works against chess as well, yet I don't really know any tilt monkeys in chess.
|
On January 03 2011 17:08 o29 wrote:
Blizzard does award points for losses,
Wait...did I miss something?
Awesome OP. That sums it up nice and clear. This explains why I sometimes only play a single game all day and watch streams instead of playing myself. Or play custom games instead of laddering.
|
I think also the fact that people over time get closer and closer to a 50% win rate when they are very good. I know that some people like games they are talented at because they just roflstomp people over 90% of the time and they get joy out of crushing people. In this game there are few times where a person feels like they are unbeatable for a day, and not even the best can feel invincible. Every battle is suppose to be a challenge as you progress, where in other games you have the option of going on rampages against noobs. People that are really good at games also tend to be biased towards their play and the play of others (saying their loss was noob luck by the opponent and that their victories were deserved skilled wins). With a win rate between 30-70% people who play a lot are bound to have rough patches that also makes them tilt more and more.
|
On January 03 2011 17:13 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:08 o29 wrote:
"Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground. "
Blizzard does award points for losses, hence the point inflation, in an attempt to reward players for losses as well. Is it effective? Probably not since I still usually hate myself after losing. The point inflation still only comes into effect when a player wins games. If you go 0-100, all the bonus pool in the world won't do you any good. I think this point holds water
Right, but it still gives players a reward just for playing more frequently. Even after a losing session you'll still often gain more points than you lost. It's just that you're often much more aware of the fact that you went 5-10 than you are that you ultimately just gained 50 points.
On January 03 2011 17:16 Semtext wrote:Wait...did I miss something?
Sorry, I stated that kind of strangely. By playing more frequently you'll gain points most of the time regardless of whether you came out with a winning record. So losses indirectly contribute to gaining points and therefore rank.
|
I really like this right up on tilt, gj
|
On January 03 2011 17:02 Twistacles wrote:
Every game will be completely different and losing costs you the entire build-up to the situation you were in.
This is what makes this game so difficult, really. It's kind of like life, you can never be prepared for everything. The game is very bittersweet, though. Immense satisfaction upon victory, as it is the culmination of you focus, skill, planning whereas defeat is sometimes the worst because a single mistake can potentially lose you the game.
If I'm understanding this correctly it's EXACTLY why I will tilt during/after a losing streak. It has little to do with everything else in the list with the exception of God Is Touchable, and Loss of Pride..
The main reason I'll tilt, is because of the quote above. It's because you work so hard to have impeccable timings, a perfect economy/army balance ratio, and etc. . . then something flips the game on its end and you're dead. All the time you spent in that game and your base is ruined, your army dead, and you lose. Bam. Just like that, the effort you put into the match is erased like it never happened except for some -points at the score screen.
God Is Touchable:
When I'm paired with someone who just kicks my ass hard, I feel completely helpless up until I gg. It's massively frustrating to know you're losing and there's very, very little you can do to stop it. This period of time can be mere moments, or last 10 minutes while my opponent sits in his base and puts the finishing touches on his devious master-plan. (muahahah?)
Loss of Pride:
I mean, it may be some guy I'll never (or rarely) be matched up with again. . . but I have to admit he's better than I am. Stupid, but as the loading screen comes up I'm sitting there thinking "Yeah! this guy is a stupid newb, I'm gonna wreck him!" I get all into that mindset and then have to kind of weakly whimper out a gg if I lose.
Only other one I want to touch on is Losing Is Private. I really think it IS a private thing in SC2. Granted, your record is on display for anyone to see over at SC2Ranks or in-game... However, losing is a private feeling because only YOU screwed up. Just you, and nobody else. Now you get to go watch the replay and see why your play didn't measure up. In 1v1, your team wasn't filled with idiots like it can be in other games. You're all alone against big scary red player on the other side of the map, and the outcome will reflect what you do. Losing in SC is very private.
My friends don't care if I have a couple losses in a row, they just want to play. So the public w/l doesn't mean much to me specifically. To others it might though.
I will agree 100% that the starcraft experience is unique to video games IMO. Lose or win at COD, Diablo, War3, whatever. Those games never bugged me much. But SC. . . wow, yeah it's crazy the ups and downs you feel after a match or in the heat of battle. Lose, and you drag your feet back to find match feeling like a total newb. Win, and you feel like the god of video games! Haha. So odd.
|
On January 03 2011 16:25 chessiecat wrote:
Even Chess requires that the other player defeat you before the game can end.
Just want to point out that surrender exists in Chess too, and is fairly common when a player recognizes a clearly lost position.
|
I don't think a game should be designed to induce the so called "tilt" this profoundly. Not for the non-pro at least.
I don't mean this in the general sense that a game should be noob-fest and I like SCII for this unique intensity. What I don't like is, the competition on ladder feels real at every skill level. What really should be is imho, bronze should be comparably light hearted to gold or whatever and so on. If you consider what's going on in games at low levels, it's quite laughable compared to high level games. What actually happens though is quite the opposite. While most diamond players are humbled out, calm and respectful, bronze is a rage fest. Therefore when a diamond guy tilts, most of the time it means something. On lower leagues though, it's stupid childish bm and kills most of the fun for serious grown up people who want a decent game with a presumably equal match.
I think this is a design fault and strengthens the general assumption that competition in a video game is for children.
My 50 year old dad plays quake and ut online, I got him into some team fortress and battlefield too. He plays chess and other competitive adult games IRL. However this guy running companies for 25 years couldn't be bothered with SCII ladder and admitted later he didn't have the nerves for it.
|
Hahaha I can sense some weak RTS souls in this thread.
What's the proposed solution? Anything introduced to the game to change it is...not a very appealing idea.
I think it's just an attitude problem. People tilt in all games. You could, for example, repeatedly lose a duel to the same guy in WoW, or never be able to complete a certain raid encounter. In WoW you change this by playing more and getting more, better equipment. You might change your spec.
In SC2 you do this by watching replays and playing more. It's the same general idea, and playing more in both games leads to improvement. It's bad attitude that leads to constant losses.
|
No solution. People need to know this stuff and why it happens and why they're affected the way they are. I didn't write this thread to complain. It's to just explain.
|
On January 03 2011 19:16 wherebugsgo wrote:
Hahaha I can sense some weak RTS souls in this thread.
What's the proposed solution? Anything introduced to the game to change it is...not a very appealing idea.
I think it's just an attitude problem. People tilt in all games. You could, for example, repeatedly lose a duel to the same guy in WoW, or never be able to complete a certain raid encounter. In WoW you change this by playing more and getting more, better equipment. You might change your spec.
In SC2 you do this by watching replays and playing more. It's the same general idea, and playing more in both games leads to improvement. It's bad attitude that leads to constant losses.
Actually you are right. I just felt sorry for my dad, lol.
|
I think an easy way to some-what remedy this situation would be for blizz to include a set of achievements which reward you simply for having played the game.
For instance, win or lose, if you play in 1000 ranked matches you unlock something new. Although I think the reward needs to be a bit cooler than a portrait, maybe they could unlock unique unit skins, or maybe even new units to use in the single player campaign or against an AI in a skirmish match.
I would also like to see a huge slew of achievements dedicated to rewarding creative play. There are already a few of them such as 'kill x amount of units with 1 high templar' but they should really extend it to all sorts of units, like 10 kill streak and 20 kill streak rewards for ALL units, and you can unlock something cool like that. This way even if you're in a losing situation, you may feel encouraged for instance to take a dark templar on a ninja raid and try to rack up kills for his kill-streak achievement. They could also include things like 'win a game without building unit x' where x could be something like a marine or a mule or a roach.
|
On January 03 2011 17:16 huameng wrote:
In tournament chess, no one actually gets checkmated. People resign just like in Starcraft. I think every point you listed works against chess as well, yet I don't really know any tilt monkeys in chess.
I think the difference is that Chess is a game of perfect information with no sudden surprises, and it's those surprises that trigger tilt. Unless you're really bad at Chess, you're never going to go from thinking you're going to win to being checkmated instantly. In Starcraft, you can go from playing a seemingly perfect game to dead from DTs in a second. In poker, you can get the money in good and lose to a 1 in 990 runner-runner.
|
On January 03 2011 19:45 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:16 huameng wrote:
In tournament chess, no one actually gets checkmated. People resign just like in Starcraft. I think every point you listed works against chess as well, yet I don't really know any tilt monkeys in chess. I think the difference is that Chess is a game of perfect information with no sudden surprises, and it's those surprises that trigger tilt. Unless you're really bad at Chess, you're never going to go from thinking you're going to win to being checkmated instantly. In Starcraft, you can go from playing a seemingly perfect game to dead from DTs in a second. In poker, you can get the money in good and lose to a 1 in 990 runner-runner.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I have to disagree with your direct comparison between poker and starcraft. In a game of starcraft, if you think you were playing perfectly and then get owned by dts, fact is you weren't playing perfectly because you didn't account for the possibility of dt by either scouting and ruling it out, or preparing blindly (scouting is always better, preparing blindly sadly must be done sometimes despite its suboptimal efficiency).
In poker, when you get your money in good, you're good. You played perfectly. Your fate is now up to the luck of whatever cards come off the deck next. There is a distinct difference between SC and poker in this respect.
|
The fact that playing SC2 requires an investment (time and energy) with possibly no return (=loss) makes the game intriguing. The emotions evolved add a dimension. Whenever I rage it sucks at that moment but right now I'm smiling about it.
Oh yeah, and just do pushups after a loss that makes you rage. The endomorphins will actually make you feel better and you'll be actually working out quite a lot (my record: 300 pushups in two days). That turns every game into a win-win scenario 
|
Yahknow, that thing about push-ups is actually a really good idea now that I'm thinking about it...
|
Honestly, at the end of the day I think right now number 5 is the biggest issue for me. If I had a social group I could consistently chat with and "hang out" with in game, I think I'd be able to deal with off days a lot better. I'm hoping chat rooms help this out a lot.
|
On January 03 2011 19:39 LilClinkin wrote:
I think an easy way to some-what remedy this situation would be for blizz to include a set of achievements which reward you simply for having played the game.
For instance, win or lose, if you play in 1000 ranked matches you unlock something new. Although I think the reward needs to be a bit cooler than a portrait, maybe they could unlock unique unit skins, or maybe even new units to use in the single player campaign or against an AI in a skirmish match.
I would also like to see a huge slew of achievements dedicated to rewarding creative play. There are already a few of them such as 'kill x amount of units with 1 high templar' but they should really extend it to all sorts of units, like 10 kill streak and 20 kill streak rewards for ALL units, and you can unlock something cool like that. This way even if you're in a losing situation, you may feel encouraged for instance to take a dark templar on a ninja raid and try to rack up kills for his kill-streak achievement. They could also include things like 'win a game without building unit x' where x could be something like a marine or a mule or a roach.
bad idea. you'd have a ton of idiots leaving 1000 games on purpose just to get the achievements.
|
I think that might actually be a very GOOD idea. Keep in mind, implementation is the issue here. Heck, why not just let it be 'If you leave before the game is up, you don't get to keep your achievements?' Straightforward solution to that kind of farming.
|
On January 03 2011 20:54 chessiecat wrote:
I think that might actually be a very GOOD idea. Keep in mind, implementation is the issue here. Heck, why not just let it be 'If you leave before the game is up, you don't get to keep your achievements?' Straightforward solution to that kind of farming.
Almost every single game ends "before the game is up" Achievements for losing would just make me feel like I was being patronized, I'd probably rage harder.
|
Meh, it's just a thought. I kind of like the idea.
|
The great thing about starcraft is... that you are the reason you lost. So you can improve to avoid that stupid losses. Everytime you lose you either made a stupid mistake or the opponent was just plain better than you.
You see how much you improve by just winning to stuff you used to lose to earlier.
Everyone that rages does not understand that part of the game.
Its rather like sports. You train to get better in ladder. You dont rage for shit because you lose a practicegame in soccer. You take it and learn from it.
Take your starcraft into cups and then you are allowed to rage because you lost in the finals to cheese.
|
On January 03 2011 16:25 chessiecat wrote:
This is something that has interested me for a while now and it has to do with something very specific to Starcraft 2. Even other Blizzard games don't suffer from as much fear and anticipation of the 'next game' as Starcraft 2 is capable of generating. Why is that?
Well, I have a theory or rather, several pieces of information that look very neat together.
Keep in mind while reading this that I don't think the game needs to change. The game is teaching me patience. Huge quantities of patience. Sometimes I fall apart after just a few games and sometimes I can go all night. If you want to know how to avoid Tilt, you have to know why it happens. Being aware of each of these factors can allow you to consciously direct your mind away from certain lines of thought. The other player is not a cheating bastard. The units are not imbalanced.
I will list a few characteristics of other games which are present to help players deal with losing and encourage them to come back into the game.
1.To the victor go the spoils...and a little something for the loser too.
In Diablo 2, Call of Duty (pretty much all of the recent ones), and any one of a list of recent games there is a particular reward simply for playing. Even Team Fortress 2 rewards you for just staying in the game with regular drops so long as you're contributing a kill once in a while.
World of Warcraft is perhaps the apex of this idea. Even into the late game it is very difficult to just 'die completely'. You can't ever lose everything you owned from death and even if you die, you still gain a bit of experience. Starcraft 2 is very 'one or the other'. Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground.
2.Defeat costs nothing.
There is a certain creativity to assembling a functional base and organizing a strategy. If it works, it is the best feeling in the world. If it doesn't, it can feel like an indictment of your creativity and flexibility as a player. The 'replay' function feels like a looming weight hanging over your head, ready to show your every failing.
If you lose in Team Fortress or even World of Warcraft, you can quickly slip back to the situation you were in and try a new tactic. Starcraft doesn't allow you to do this. Every game will be completely different and losing costs you the entire build-up to the situation you were in.
3.Failure is a private thing.
Nobody can see how many times you've had your face ground into the dust at the click of a single button in Diablo 2. Win/Loss records are private in Team Fortress 2. World of Warcraft won't give away how many games you've lost in a row. You can be TERRIBLE and people will still play with you even if you suck miserably.
Starcraft has these right out there in public. Every crushing defeat is there to be mocked by the public at large.
4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
5.If I'm not winning then I can just go hang with friends! (this section is temporary until chat rooms are implemented)
Starcraft 2 is not a social game right now. It's a game of strict combat. You can't just sit and observe others playing or converse with them in large part.
The Public Test Realms allowed players to interact and to gather up a group of people to just come and enjoy watching another player's game. It was huge fun sitting and casting games while they were going on, describing the tactics and going over each element. You learn a lot from it. It's also very friendly.
This friendly interaction takes the competition down a notch and encourages experimentation and exchange of ideas. It makes players feel less isolated with their failures if they can head into a chatroom and say 'Damn, I screwed up'.
6.Losing requires no loss of pride.
Starcraft 2 requires you to surrender. No other major multi-player game I can think of off the top of my head except perhaps Warcraft 3 requires a surrender button to end the game quickly. You are either killed or you win. Surrender is a very powerful idea. It acknowledges defeat so complete that you don't even want to see the end of the battle.
This surrender is not just the loss of your base but of pride and of the effort you put in. In Starcraft 2 you can continue to play after the point you have been beaten, but the only reason to do so is to make the other player hate you.
--------------------------------------
Taken individually none of these things would make a player feel particularly uncomfortable but together they can add up to a sports event level feeling of pressure to perform. There are plenty of threads on how to 'deal' with Tilt but not many on why tilt happens so heavily in SC2. I figured the information might be helpful. None of these things is BAD for the game. This game will teach you not to fear failing. It just takes time. {edit to remove statements about chess}
This is a start to why we consider starcraft to be a mans game, and games like WoW/CoD etc to be "pussy games"
The better skilled guys will always win? That's how it should be. The solution is to grow a pair and improve your own play rather than wanting to do well without enough skill.
|
On January 03 2011 21:16 DennyR wrote:
The great thing about starcraft is... that you are the reason you lost. So you can improve to avoid that stupid losses. Everytime you lose you either made a stupid mistake or the opponent was just plain better than you.
You see how much you improve by just winning to stuff you used to lose to earlier.
Everyone that rages does not understand that part of the game.
Its rather like sports. You train to get better in ladder. You dont rage for shit because you lose a practicegame in soccer. You take it and learn from it.
Take your starcraft into cups and then you are allowed to rage because you lost in the finals to cheese.
You are wrong, its normal to rage about a loss.
Like IdrA said, if you never rage about a loss, then you aren't serious enough about the game.
But you also have to learn from it.
ps: oh and by raging I didnt meant being BM, I meant being mad over the loss (of course BMing and whining about imbalances on forums is bad).
|
WHat you ahve summed up is not unique to SC2
It's a fact for all RTS games and several MMO's (eve online comes to mind) included in RTS it's also DoTA / HoN / LoL etc
this is nothing new
|
Exactly, it's common to the whole RTS genre like Snowfield said.
Call me crazy but I actually like to lose. Sure I play to win but losing means learning where I went wrong and what to improve upon next time.
Of course losing due to a major screw up of some kind would inspire me to give the push-up rage purge technique a go
|
On January 03 2011 16:25 chessiecat wrote:
4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
Isn't that awesome that you can't rely on luck but ONLY on your skill to beat someone? This is why Starcraft is the best. 
|
On January 03 2011 17:12 alphafuzard wrote:
Mostly agree I suppose, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "God is touchable" point.
Noobs aren't going to be killing the TLO's of Call of Duty. Ever.
And if they did, it would be like a noob killing one zergling, but losing 50 - still not a shot in hell of victory.
Hopefully the social aspect is improved with chat rooms and group replays.
Definitely going to disagree here. I've played quite a few games competitively, but never at a high level. And I've definitely killed some "gods" of their sports in various FPS, in competitive and casual settings.
I've killed DaHang twice(in CA, not duel, but still), walter and dtK once apiece in duel, and jones, kgb, Wintergr33n(I think, lol, EG member I thik, been a little while ago) and a bunch of other "pro" ctf players quite often in casual CTF games, and in one competitive game.
In CSS I 1 v 3'ed an ESEA invite group in a casual game, where I had the bomb down and they were trying to defuse. I've also killed single "professional" players in ESEA pugs quite often.
And all these players are of the caliber that if the same level/skill difference we were at was applied to SC2, I would get hardcore raped. In FPS games, a single lucky shot like a flick 1 deag can get you a kill and win you a round vs a professional player. In SC2, making a single lucky play won't win you anything but another 15 seconds of time you would survive.
|
On January 03 2011 22:39 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:12 alphafuzard wrote:
Mostly agree I suppose, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "God is touchable" point.
Noobs aren't going to be killing the TLO's of Call of Duty. Ever.
And if they did, it would be like a noob killing one zergling, but losing 50 - still not a shot in hell of victory.
Hopefully the social aspect is improved with chat rooms and group replays. Definitely going to disagree here. I've played quite a few games competitively, but never at a high level. And I've definitely killed some "gods" of their sports in various FPS, in competitive and casual settings. I've killed DaHang twice(in CA, not duel, but still), walter and dtK once apiece in duel, and jones, kgb, Wintergr33n(I think, lol, EG member I thik, been a little while ago) and a bunch of other "pro" ctf players quite often in casual CTF games, and in one competitive game. In CSS I 1 v 3'ed an ESEA invite group in a casual game, where I had the bomb down and they were trying to defuse. I've also killed single "professional" players in ESEA pugs quite often. And all these players are of the caliber that if the same level/skill difference we were at was applied to SC2, I would get hardcore raped. In FPS games, a single lucky shot like a flick 1 deag can get you a kill and win you a round vs a professional player. In SC2, making a single lucky play won't win you anything but another 15 seconds of time you would survive.
Someone named ActionJesus has something to say about this.
|
RTS is a genre for the few the proud the elitists who want to play a game that's hard and don't need no fucking rewards for playing what they love playing.
We take the defeats with rage and the victories with a solid fistbump
We tell MMO's and FPS games to go fuck themselves, fucking carebears, play a game that require real skills.
|
Very great post. I have had many conversations in a separate community about how gaming now feels the need to reward you constantly. I can not be more enthused that someone shares the same feeling.
|
On January 03 2011 22:44 Snowfield wrote:We tell MMO's and FPS games to go fuck themselves, fucking carebears, play a game that require real skills.
Try playing WoW or Quake Live at the pro level. We'll see how quickly your implication that they don't require "real skill" goes out the window.
SC2 is indeed a brutal game, but that's what makes it so very awesome when you win a close game. The secret to not tilting is different for everyone, because everyone has a different personality. Generally, I'd think that more practice = less tilt, but I've seen pros tilt so that probably doesn't work all the time.
I'd say just play until you're not having fun, once it stops being fun, you're just punishing yourself. Once you've cooled down a bit, get back to the games (as CatZ would say). Maybe watch some pro replays or your own to see what went wrong, work on refining your build order, etc.
|
On January 03 2011 22:43 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 22:39 Sm3agol wrote:On January 03 2011 17:12 alphafuzard wrote:
Mostly agree I suppose, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "God is touchable" point.
Noobs aren't going to be killing the TLO's of Call of Duty. Ever.
And if they did, it would be like a noob killing one zergling, but losing 50 - still not a shot in hell of victory.
Hopefully the social aspect is improved with chat rooms and group replays. Definitely going to disagree here. I've played quite a few games competitively, but never at a high level. And I've definitely killed some "gods" of their sports in various FPS, in competitive and casual settings. I've killed DaHang twice(in CA, not duel, but still), walter and dtK once apiece in duel, and jones, kgb, Wintergr33n(I think, lol, EG member I thik, been a little while ago) and a bunch of other "pro" ctf players quite often in casual CTF games, and in one competitive game. In CSS I 1 v 3'ed an ESEA invite group in a casual game, where I had the bomb down and they were trying to defuse. I've also killed single "professional" players in ESEA pugs quite often. And all these players are of the caliber that if the same level/skill difference we were at was applied to SC2, I would get hardcore raped. In FPS games, a single lucky shot like a flick 1 deag can get you a kill and win you a round vs a professional player. In SC2, making a single lucky play won't win you anything but another 15 seconds of time you would survive. Someone named ActionJesus has something to say about this.
haha, but not just him.
The lack of complete information in SC2 introduces a luck factor. So really, only in a game like chess would be where the "gods" are untouchable.
Just like how it's possible to take a pot from a better player in poker, once you reach a certain level of mechanics in SC2, you can "gamble" and beat a better player in SC2.
|
hey great OP makes me feel like a badass just for playing sc2 instead of some other game lol.
|
On January 03 2011 23:05 popnyah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 22:44 Snowfield wrote:We tell MMO's and FPS games to go fuck themselves, fucking carebears, play a game that require real skills. Try playing WoW or Quake Live at the pro level. We'll see how quickly your implication that they don't require "real skill" goes out the window.
Played WoW competitively since season1, it isn't hard. Unlike SC2, in WoW once you reach a "high" level you are pretty much unbeatable.
In Starcraft2 the pros have 60-70% win loss ratio at best, in WoW if you don't have 80-90% win loss you are pretty much considered bad.
|
Not to rant but I still find it funny that Blizzard thought that chat channels were not required for the release of this game. How does communication happen on SC2? You know the person from elsewhere. You met the person in a game. You see a stream or are in a stream channel with the other person. It's not like you can actively communicate with other TLers on SC2. I need to go on IRC or Vent to find people. I'm sure most people don't do this, and most people who don't know about a lot of the SC2 sites out there don't do it either.
When people feel lonely or unfulfilled they are less likely to participate in something for a lengthy period, though I think with your other points if you had a more 'fun' and 'teamwork is great' functionality in the game (like COD) you would see less long-term retention. Players will just get used to the same old same old and only the hardcore gamers will remain, but the retention of players will be lower than that of SC2 or WOW because the constant release of new versions, or new games for that matter.
EDIT: Less wall-of-text...
|
That's a funny thing about the matchmaking system. I guess I should expect the 50% win-loss ratio but it's such a foreign idea to expect to lose HALF of my games no matter how good I get that I've had trouble with the idea.
|
These are all interesting points. I don't think they are unique to RTS though, I think they are merely correspondent to a dying breed of games. I remember feeling intense anxiety and stress after I saw the words, "You have left the protection of the town guards" when I played UO, because I knew there were reds out there waiting to kill my noob ass and pick my corpse clean, when everything I owned took me hours of skinning cows to get... lol.
Games just don't punish people like they used to. Starcraft, as an RTS, is more punishing than it needs to be due to lack of real interaction and lack of any functional features which would make the game more interesting, such as an observing system for high level games. Most games though have the potential for this, they just choose the WoW route because that's what hooks casuals into paying for longer amounts of time. As a user mentioned, EVE online retains this feature even though the game itself is absolutely no fun at all.
I wish the discussion would focus more on preventing tilt, I feel like I read a breakdown on why Starcraft is awesome but I still feel like I don't fully understand the concept of tilt. When did I go from freaking out over being alone in UO to being comfortable and calm in escaping my hunters? When did I master my fear of loss? How did I do it? I still struggle with these things in Starcraft, I'll play custom games against tough opponents all day but I know if I ladder a few times I'll get burned out and want to quit even if I win. I wish I knew how to stop that from happening.
|
There are a thousand and one threads on preventing tilt. If you don't know why tilt happens, you can't prevent it and none of those threads that I've seen have gone over the reasons that tilt happens so badly in SC2.
Keep in mind, the satisfaction on the flip side is equal. When you win, you are a giant penis howitzer that fires lightning. You are Jesus riding a grizzly bear. You are Muhamed Ali punching a tank to death.
|
I disagree with the fact that a really bad player can't take at least one match from a pro or really good player.
There are ways to win one match (6-9 pool vs 15 hatch in zvz for example). That's why tournaments have bo3 and above.
Also you should not be rewarded for just playing (although the bonus pool does this), it's about constant improving. I'm not a fan of the new era hand holding going on in gaming atm.
|
On January 03 2011 16:25 chessiecat wrote:
This is something that has interested me for a while now and it has to do with something very specific to Starcraft 2. Even other Blizzard games don't suffer from as much fear and anticipation of the 'next game' as Starcraft 2 is capable of generating. Why is that?
Well, I have a theory or rather, several pieces of information that look very neat together.
Keep in mind while reading this that I don't think the game needs to change. The game is teaching me patience. Huge quantities of patience. Sometimes I fall apart after just a few games and sometimes I can go all night. If you want to know how to avoid Tilt, you have to know why it happens. Being aware of each of these factors can allow you to consciously direct your mind away from certain lines of thought. The other player is not a cheating bastard. The units are not imbalanced.
I will list a few characteristics of other games which are present to help players deal with losing and encourage them to come back into the game.
1.To the victor go the spoils...and a little something for the loser too.
In Diablo 2, Call of Duty (pretty much all of the recent ones), and any one of a list of recent games there is a particular reward simply for playing. Even Team Fortress 2 rewards you for just staying in the game with regular drops so long as you're contributing a kill once in a while.
World of Warcraft is perhaps the apex of this idea. Even into the late game it is very difficult to just 'die completely'. You can't ever lose everything you owned from death and even if you die, you still gain a bit of experience. Starcraft 2 is very 'one or the other'. Death and loss or triumph and supreme domination. You get some points or you lose some but there is no middle ground.
2.Defeat costs nothing.
There is a certain creativity to assembling a functional base and organizing a strategy. If it works, it is the best feeling in the world. If it doesn't, it can feel like an indictment of your creativity and flexibility as a player. The 'replay' function feels like a looming weight hanging over your head, ready to show your every failing.
If you lose in Team Fortress or even World of Warcraft, you can quickly slip back to the situation you were in and try a new tactic. Starcraft doesn't allow you to do this. Every game will be completely different and losing costs you the entire build-up to the situation you were in.
3.Failure is a private thing.
Nobody can see how many times you've had your face ground into the dust at the click of a single button in Diablo 2. Win/Loss records are private in Team Fortress 2. World of Warcraft won't give away how many games you've lost in a row. You can be TERRIBLE and people will still play with you even if you suck miserably.
Starcraft has these right out there in public. Every crushing defeat is there to be mocked by the public at large.
4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
5.If I'm not winning then I can just go hang with friends! (this section is temporary until chat rooms are implemented)
Starcraft 2 is not a social game right now. It's a game of strict combat. You can't just sit and observe others playing or converse with them in large part.
The Public Test Realms allowed players to interact and to gather up a group of people to just come and enjoy watching another player's game. It was huge fun sitting and casting games while they were going on, describing the tactics and going over each element. You learn a lot from it. It's also very friendly.
This friendly interaction takes the competition down a notch and encourages experimentation and exchange of ideas. It makes players feel less isolated with their failures if they can head into a chatroom and say 'Damn, I screwed up'.
6.Losing requires no loss of pride.
Starcraft 2 requires you to surrender. No other major multi-player game I can think of off the top of my head except perhaps Warcraft 3 requires a surrender button to end the game quickly. You are either killed or you win. Surrender is a very powerful idea. It acknowledges defeat so complete that you don't even want to see the end of the battle.
This surrender is not just the loss of your base but of pride and of the effort you put in. In Starcraft 2 you can continue to play after the point you have been beaten, but the only reason to do so is to make the other player hate you.
--------------------------------------
Taken individually none of these things would make a player feel particularly uncomfortable but together they can add up to a sports event level feeling of pressure to perform. There are plenty of threads on how to 'deal' with Tilt but not many on why tilt happens so heavily in SC2. I figured the information might be helpful. None of these things is BAD for the game. This game will teach you not to fear failing. It just takes time. {edit to remove statements about chess}
I don't think these are really the issues. BW was much better at bringing players back for more, yet the gameplay is the same. Other RTS's don't necessarily have this issue either, and they have most (if not all) of the same features.
|
Read the post again. I didn't list any of those things as 'issues'. This post wasn't to complain about the game. It was written to give people the reasons behind 'tilt'.
|
On January 04 2011 02:45 chessiecat wrote:
Read the post again. I didn't list any of those things as 'issues'. This post wasn't to complain about the game. It was written to give people the reasons behind 'tilt'.
Last I checked, "issue" and "problem that makes the game worse" aren't necessarily the same word/phrase.
|
your "God is Untouchable" point is way more valid in SC:BW than in StarCraft 2. In StarCraft 2 bad players can beat good player a hell of a lot easier than in BroodWar.
Also from reading your post i assume you were not a BroodWar player?
|
On January 03 2011 19:45 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:16 huameng wrote:
In tournament chess, no one actually gets checkmated. People resign just like in Starcraft. I think every point you listed works against chess as well, yet I don't really know any tilt monkeys in chess. I think the difference is that Chess is a game of perfect information with no sudden surprises, and it's those surprises that trigger tilt. Unless you're really bad at Chess, you're never going to go from thinking you're going to win to being checkmated instantly. In Starcraft, you can go from playing a seemingly perfect game to dead from DTs in a second. In poker, you can get the money in good and lose to a 1 in 990 runner-runner.
eh, in chess the same thing can happen.
^^pulimuli, no one cares, no reason to start something.
|
To all stated in the OP is why I LOVE War3 and Star2. Its basically a game BUILT for competition and there's nothing that gives bad players an easier run. Either you fight and practice to get better, or you simply accept that this is not a game for you.
|
On January 04 2011 03:08 LittLeD wrote:
To all stated in the OP is why I LOVE War3 and Star2. Its basically a game BUILT for competition and there's nothing that gives bad players an easier run. Either you fight and practice to get better, or you simply accept that this is not a game for you.
I totally agree.
|
On January 04 2011 02:54 Pulimuli wrote:
your "God is Untouchable" point is way more valid in SC:BW than in StarCraft 2. In StarCraft 2 bad players can beat good player a hell of a lot easier than in BroodWar.
Also from reading your post i assume you were not a BroodWar player?
And that falls solidly on how poorly built the game's UI was, which is not a positive, imo. It gave the game a false learning curve, where just getting used to what the game UI made you do was half the battle. It worked out in the end because the rest of the game was so solid, but it's not exactly a good model on how to create a successful e-sports game. If SC2 had half the horrible UI failures that BW had, noone would be playing it now.
|
On January 04 2011 02:27 chessiecat wrote:
Keep in mind, the satisfaction on the flip side is equal. When you win, you are a giant penis howitzer that fires lightning. You are Jesus riding a grizzly bear. You are Muhamed Ali punching a tank to death.
This is exactly right. I mean, I am all of those things.
No, actually I'm not, but the point about the satisfaction on the flip side being equal is absolutely key. I play SC2 and sometimes I go on a losing streak and get bummed out, but I improve my game and savor my wins that much more. And they're MY wins, not at all applicable to luck. There are no games I've lost where I've looked at the replays and there was absolutely nothing I could have done better. Every loss is mine, and every win is mine.
|
Personally, I think a large part of SC2s problem regarding the appeal of competitive matches is the sheer opacity of the system rather than the "nastiness" or otherwise of it.
What puts me off laddering, or at least makes the whole experience a lot less pleasent than it could be, is the void in which it's performed. Unless a player's somehow managed to attach genuine significance to league points, the chances are the only punishments or rewards available for wins and losses are the wins and losses themselves. There's simply no obvious significance to any one game, or evenings worth of games.
To compare and contrast a little...
In EVE (played it for the first 9 months), if I took my battleship loaded with my "best" kit into 0.0 space and dove into a fight, I knew damn well I had chance of binning a lot of time and efforts worth of kit if it went tits up, but I also knew I had a chance of inflicting the same thing on the opposition. The consequences were obvious and immediate, and downright adrenaline-pumping. The amount "on the line" compared to an SC2 ladder match was massive, but it was worth doing because the rewards for victory (or merely avoiding defeat) were just so much fun, and so immediate. Had the result of a three hour running battle around some system or other been the words "You won, that is all", I'd have uninstalled it after the first week.
In iRacing*, the consequences were also very prominently shown. Without going into details, there were essentially four stats that moved about per race, with these stats being visible to one and all. At the end of a race, you knew** precisely who you beat, who beat you, how the ranked relative to you both before and after the race, how safe they usually are, how experienced they were, etc. In short, you could go out there and come 10th in a 14 car field and, thanks to being able to see the stats, work out that you had, in fact, beaten everyone ranked below you plus one driver ranked above you - surface result... you sucked... actual result... you put in a better performance than expected, "gratz". Personally, I think Blizzard could learn so, so much from the iRacing system as the firm statistical context it placed around the competition gave genuine meaning to results and performance - it made everything matter, gave positives in the face of ostensibly negative outcomes, and gave obvious, clear, and unambiguous targets*** to aim for.
I suppose, to sum it all up, what I feel SC2 lacks is, oddly, any real sense of competition. It's all just a big, anonymous void, in which it's impossible to measure yourself even against friends by any measure other than "he usually beats me" or vice versa.
* A very hardcore motor racing sim (not game, not in a million years), entirely online, entirely against human opponents, and where beating the best of the best was as likely as it is in SC2 (in fact, probably even less so).
** Past tense, sadly. Just don't have the time for it any more. Brilliant system though. Brilliant.
*** Which SC2 simply doesn't do. "I'm going to get to Platinum" is, as a target, about as meaningful as stating "I'm going to go to Washington" without actually knowing which Washington you're supposed to get to or, for that matter, where on the planet you're currently situated.
|
I really don't get this. Is this basically a long winded way of saying, "I hate losing, so I wish there was some artificial way or device or system that was in place so that my ego didn't feel so battered"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, then it just sounds like you need to work on your mentality regarding competition, because that's how competition works, and SC is an ultra-competitive game.
|
IMO these things are precisely one of the triumphs behind the SC2 competition system, that it makes even bronze seem real, it brings a sense of real competition to every gaming level, thus while sucking at the game, you can still enjoy the "rush" of competing. This is very different from other RTS and competitive games, in which you get punished real hard for sucking, and there's almost no way to feel rewards until you are in a mid-high competition level. SC2 rewards you for progress and does so through a tangible and visible method.
For me, this means that while it's very dissapointing to lose, the rewards for winning and, particularly, for improving and progressing through leagues are much more potent than the punishment for sucking at the game.
|
On January 04 2011 04:01 Kimaker wrote:
I really don't get this. Is this basically a long winded way of saying, "I hate losing, so I wish there was some artificial way or device or system that was in place so that my ego didn't feel so battered"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, then it just sounds like you need to work on your mentality regarding competition, because that's how competition works, and SC is an ultra-competitive game.
Did you happen to glaze over the part where OP explained: Keep in mind while reading this that I don't think the game needs to change
Or the several other posts where the OP explains that the purpose isn't to complain about StarCraft, but to explain the sources of tilt so players can better deal with it.
Anyway. I pretty much agree with all of this. I experience much more anxiety before a game of starcraft than I did/do experience before rounds of CS/CoD. I think another contributing factor is the structure of an RTS game compared to FPS games. Cause and effect are very closely tied (or appear to be) in FPS games. You die because you were slower on the draw or didn't check a corner or approached poorly etc. Your failure 3 minutes ago rarely comes back to bite you. (There are always exceptions, such as Quake-style FPSes).
In contrast many losses in RTS games seem very much rooted in the past which contributes to a sense of helplessness.
|
2. Ever played HoN? its the same. You start from scrap every game, and there is only loose or win.
4. Ofcourse you can always lucky shot some one in CoD, but killing an enemy pro gamer once doesnt win you the game. You need to kill a whole team to win 1 round. A team consist out of 5 players. The chances you lucky shot a pro are like 1%. You also have to win 21 rounds out of 40. Gl winning :')
my idea is: you just dont know enough about others games on a competitive level like you do about starcraft. all games with a competitive scene around it have many differences in skill level.
|
On January 03 2011 19:16 wherebugsgo wrote:
Hahaha I can sense some weak RTS souls in this thread.
What's the proposed solution? Anything introduced to the game to change it is...not a very appealing idea.
I think it's just an attitude problem. People tilt in all games. You could, for example, repeatedly lose a duel to the same guy in WoW, or never be able to complete a certain raid encounter. In WoW you change this by playing more and getting more, better equipment. You might change your spec.
In SC2 you do this by watching replays and playing more. It's the same general idea, and playing more in both games leads to improvement. It's bad attitude that leads to constant losses.
I did play MMOs (Lineage2) a huge amount of time and never had such feelings sc2 laddering managed to inflict on me. Only incident that could come close was party vs party against the only other top clan on server when wins or defeats were topics of discussions for weeks. Movies recorded, players spectating. Failure was definitely not a private thing. However, being a team game, you could never take the full responsibility for a loss on yourself.
In starcraft its you. Playing more wont grant you better chances, there's no such backup as better equip. You start with 6 harvesters and a main, he starts with 6 and a main. What happens next is just a result of your actions alone. Comparable to FPS maybe but as opposed to shooters, your whole thought process is under scrutiny after a loss. Feeling absolutely powerless in face of your opponent. That's what i think leads to TILT
i've only experienced it once when i, as terran, decided to steer away from mm, cloak banshee, defensive play, into reading my opponents actions, trying to react, understand the metagame. Needless to say i got into a huge loose streak eventually getting paired with bronze. Nothing seemed to work and i was seriously doubting not just my RTS skills but my decision making and intelligence (which never happened in any competitive game i've played). Got out of it and even though im still gold, same as i was when i did the switch, i just feel 10 times more confident and losses dont affect me at all.
So yeah, TILT is just your psyche flipping out. And starcraft 2 seems to put it to the test more than any other games.
|
Agree that is why ladders are emptying I dont think the expansions will sell as well as the WoL did too...
SC2 is too hardcore and that is actually good
|
On January 03 2011 16:25 chessiecat wrote:
4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
This is actually something I like. Knowing that if I practice hard enough and put enough time into SC2 to not get killed by something stupid like a crit rocket in TF2 or whatever. There are so many popular games right now where you can be way better than everyone else in a server, practice all the time, and still get killed by stupid lucky shit or your team will lose or something.
The fact that SC2 and Brood War are much more skill oriented rather than luck oriented is very appealing to me and is a motivation to practice and try harder.
I think your other points are definitely true. I hate losing as do most people. However, in gaming I'm learning more and more than losing isn't really a bad thing. I tend to learn a lot more from losing than winning and as such if players can simply not care about their record or not care about some of the other points you mentioned they'll probably find that they get better way faster.
|
On January 04 2011 03:30 TFB wrote:
In iRacing*, the consequences were also very prominently shown. Without going into details, there were essentially four stats that moved about per race, with these stats being visible to one and all. At the end of a race, you knew** precisely who you beat, who beat you, how the ranked relative to you both before and after the race, how safe they usually are, how experienced they were, etc. In short, you could go out there and come 10th in a 14 car field and, thanks to being able to see the stats, work out that you had, in fact, beaten everyone ranked below you plus one driver ranked above you - surface result... you sucked... actual result... you put in a better performance than expected, "gratz". Personally, I think Blizzard could learn so, so much from the iRacing system as the firm statistical context it placed around the competition gave genuine meaning to results and performance - it made everything matter, gave positives in the face of ostensibly negative outcomes, and gave obvious, clear, and unambiguous targets*** to aim for.
Well when you subtract bonus pool, I think it is pretty easy to see who is the better player. Now if the ranks are really close, it won't mean all that much if your 10 points ahead of someone else, that could just be the difference of one game.
I'm replying because I'm interested, I would really like to hear how you think Blizzard could learn from iRacing (haven't played it), because it sound's like you think Blizzard could learn in the way of offering better statistics, instead of just win/loss. Yeah they could throw in other statistics that are important, what was your meaningful APM? How many resources did you float? How good was your saturation? How good was your scouting? How were you ahead or behind the tech switch game? These things all matter, but only in the context of a very unique game, which is each and every game played. I don't think it's possible to assign meaningful statistics to them, it is much better to watch the replay, and learn that way, in the context of the game. This game I floated too many minerals, I needed to get gas sooner. That game I floated too many minerals, but he killed all my queens and I was behind. I just don't see how you can compare racing to RTS, which has so much more unknown, so much more randomness, so much more decision making. Then at the same time, there is no 14 car field, there is only one vs. one, there is no "at least my lap time improved". When you are in a game, that game is all that matters, yeah you can be proud of yourself because you micro'ed or macro'ed a little better than before, but without a cohesive unity of all your efforts, that combined are good enough to win you the game, it doesn't matter. At least it doesn't matter until you take what you learned from your loss, apply it to the next game, and use it to win.
|
On January 04 2011 04:49 noD wrote:
Agree that is why ladders are emptying I dont think the expansions will sell as well as the WoL did too...
SC2 is too hardcore and that is actually good
Do they release statistics on how much ladder play is going on?
As to the OP, good analysis. I definetely feel tension when playing on the ladder, to the point where I am mostly playing on my second account (created to learn Z) because I don't care about losses on that one.
|
the thing that effects me on that list is three, scared of dropping below 50% wins, let alone dropping out of diamond
|
The wording of the OPs beginning paragraph is unfortunate, because it's tone is that starcraft does this to everyone who play, when he really meant is that it does it to him.
No, starcraft is not the only game to give those butterflies for me. Heck, it's not even the only rts or video game to give me the butterflies.
But yes, having butterflies before competition is cool.
|
i just play custom games to avoid all this :p
i'm a really bad loser and i get very pissed off at myself so i mostly play customs 
|
Very interesting!
I'm a gold player and ladder but I don't take it serious enough to care about my record. I try for a 50/50 and if I will insta quit games to keep myself from going to high. (probably unfair but it helps from having to worry about playing diamond players who stomp me.) This keeps me from getting nervous I think.
Others might think I'm trash (gold with 500~ games played), which is probably true but I think not caring about my record or if I'm in a low division has kept me playing this long since I'm still having fun.
|
On January 04 2011 05:34 ashaman771 wrote:
The wording of the OPs beginning paragraph is unfortunate, because it's tone is that starcraft does this to everyone who play, when he really meant is that it does it to him.
No, starcraft is not the only game to give those butterflies for me. Heck, it's not even the only rts or video game to give me the butterflies.
But yes, having butterflies before competition is cool.
OP did a fine description to competitive starcraft. also a very enjoyable read.
had you read the whole topic you would have noticed most of the users identified in at least one if not in many characteristics listed. Fact it cant be about him only.
|
I think that SC2 for super-competitive people is very similiar to a gambling addiction...less, you don't lose your bank account. For myself, I get very exhausted after only a couple games on the ladder, but let me lose 12 in a row to a 2900 Diamond and I am ok as long as I know why and can create a plan to improve and close the gap in performance. I can't stand to lose a game on the ladder, and the rush the comes over me while playing is not the type of rush or feeling that just any video game provides. I do think that this can easily translate into "Tilt" or a high level of frustration if you are an extremely competitive person.
The way I look at each loss is that there were lessons to be learned. If I don't identify and actively work to improve on those items the loss was just to further frustrate me. Gonna try the push up idea too...since I started playing SC2 I stopped going to the gym altogether!
|
I am a jiu-jitsu fighter and sc2 player and I feel the exact same when competing in both. I guess both have a lot in common, especially the ones stated in the OP.
|
This unfortunate reality is what makes Starcraft 2 the greatest of eSports. This inner struggle is what puts it on the same level as individual competition sports, like martial arts, fencing, or chess, and solos in the performing arts.
It should be fairly obvious why I would compare Starcraft to those individual sports. They all require a similar clarity of mind and level of focus to make correct, split-second decisions. As for the performance arts, I expect the reason is a little less clear. Performing a long piano solo or choreographed dance routine requires extreme focus and connection with one's body to do well, not unlike a complex build order. Starcraft is, in effect, a fusion of performance and competition. Day9 once said some thing to the effect of "Starcraft demands both the mental fortitude of a chess grandmaster and the graceful dexterity of a virtuoso pianist." Though this dualism makes a player twice as vulnerable to tilt, the internal rewards of success are also doubled. This is what makes this game, as well as its predecessor, beautiful. There is no other activity on this earth which is comparable in this regard.
|
Starcraft 2 was made with the intent to be a sport.
That is why "God" is untouchable. "God" spends hours each day playing SC2 and is passionate about it. Many progamers played BW for years too, while bronzies just started in the RTS world.
Similarly, a high school tennis player has no hope of beating Nadal in a match. He is not a professional and has less experience in the sport.
When you lose, you get experience and knowledge. Losing is more valuable than winning unless there is a prize involved, because you get to understand what you did wrong and understand how to refine your builds.
|
These threads are getting tiresome. There shouldn't be a study of SC tilt, because starcraft is a computer game played for fun with no downside to losing. Points are merely there to make sure that you are playing even opponents, because who wants to run over scrubs or get massacred by pros.
WHY do you care about losing? WHY do you care about points? Why do people BM so much? Computer games are a lot of fun, but they are also a huge waste of time, so if you are playing SC or any other game you should be doing so purely for fun. No one gives a shit if you go down a few points or if you are in diamond or bronze, and if you are obsessed with those stats you are playing due to addiction and not for fun, plain and simple.
|
"3.Failure is a private thing.
Nobody can see how many times you've had your face ground into the dust at the click of a single button in Diablo 2. Win/Loss records are private in Team Fortress 2. World of Warcraft won't give away how many games you've lost in a row. You can be TERRIBLE and people will still play with you even if you suck miserably.
Starcraft has these right out there in public. Every crushing defeat is there to be mocked by the public at large. "
OP, you are seriously off your rocker if you think "the public at large" gives a shit about peoples SC rank.
|
decent OP, but I have a problem with this: + Show Spoiler +4.God is touchable.
The most heavily kitted out World of Warcraft warrior with the absolute best armor he can possibly have can still be killed by a slightly crap mage of near equal level in the right circumstances. The longest running player of Team Fortress 2 will always die to a bullet in the head from a Sniper rifle or prolonged fire from the other end of the map. In Call of Duty, even the best cannot weather a hail of bullets.
In Starcraft 2, the odds that Mr.Bronzey Mc-Spacky pants is EVER going to kill Huk or Jinro are approximately zero. It just will not happen. The distance between a player like Idra or Huk and the lowest level Bronze player is so massive that persevering to improve feels like pissing off Niagra Falls. You won't ever 'get lucky' and manage to kill these player.
This analogy just doesn't work in my mind. You're comparing very different things, like getting a kill to winning a game. Sure a great player might die to a newb via headshot once in a while but the good player isn't going to lose a match to a newb in any of the games you listed. These are team games so a great arena team or a great FPS team aren't going to lose a match to a bronze scrub. Just as a SC2 pro won't lose a series to a bronze scrub. A bronze scrub can certainly kill some of IdrA's or Huks units within a game which is what your analogy more accurately reflects. Getting a kill in a CTF game of TF2 is the equivalent of a newbs zealots killing one of IdrA's zerglings.
|
I think the whole rank and game finding system killed my interest. I happen to be a pretty good player in all games I play. Not the best, but good enough so I can win about 90% of the random SC2 (that put me in mid diamond)game or defeat 99% of people in FPS (I remember those who legitimately play better, not many of them do in the game of my choice)
However, I am also a busy medical student. When I came back home from frustration and tiredness of the day, I don't want another challenge where I attempt to defeat or be defeated at a 50% rate, I just want to be able to play against the population at large and enjoy my much better odd of winning against randoms.
You may then say, hey, but there is custom game, still, right? Not true, because I tend to rage quit when I see someone much higher ranked than me, something I will not have to do in any other game. Ranking system basically take out of the mystery in winning or losing for me.
|
On January 04 2011 04:29 ocdscale wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2011 04:01 Kimaker wrote:
I really don't get this. Is this basically a long winded way of saying, "I hate losing, so I wish there was some artificial way or device or system that was in place so that my ego didn't feel so battered"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, then it just sounds like you need to work on your mentality regarding competition, because that's how competition works, and SC is an ultra-competitive game. Did you happen to glaze over the part where OP explained: Or the several other posts where the OP explains that the purpose isn't to complain about StarCraft, but to explain the sources of tilt so players can better deal with it. Anyway. I pretty much agree with all of this. I experience much more anxiety before a game of starcraft than I did/do experience before rounds of CS/CoD. I think another contributing factor is the structure of an RTS game compared to FPS games. Cause and effect are very closely tied (or appear to be) in FPS games. You die because you were slower on the draw or didn't check a corner or approached poorly etc. Your failure 3 minutes ago rarely comes back to bite you. (There are always exceptions, such as Quake-style FPSes). In contrast many losses in RTS games seem very much rooted in the past which contributes to a sense of helplessness.
And I supposed my point is, why? Why even bother then? The way to deal with it is to just fix your mentality in regard to competition. If any of that makes you tweak out to the point where you just can't play, then there's something wrong about the entire way you're approaching the game, and the competitive environment.
Not saying that it's not normal to get thrown off your whack sometimes, but you play through it, and it's more the exception as opposed to the rule. If the rule of your play is that you're constantly on tilt for these reasons, I'd say that the issue is you.
I guess I just don't understand the issue, since the "answer" seems self-explanatory.
Maybe I'm just not getting the OP...if that's the case ignore me.
|
For the majority of players, a game is supposed to be fun. I am not having fun when I am getting destroyed. I have enough competition in my day to day life already.
|
On January 04 2011 08:37 Protoss_Carrier wrote:
For the majority of players, a game is supposed to be fun. I am not having fun when I am getting destroyed. I have enough competition in my day to day life already.
Well that is kind the point of the op
I think blizz made WoL to sound fun for single player and after months just hardcore multiplayers will stay on. Well hope they dont get a budget cut if Hots doesnt sell how much that they are planning xDDDDDDDDDD
|
with all the rants and qq-ing, with all the bad stomach aches after losing game after game, with all the triumph and tribulations after wining a single epic game, with everything this game can offer, it is clearly and utterly impossible to deny that this is why we love this game. blizzard didn't just make another good multi player game, or another best seller, it revamped and remade a way of living. not just for the pro gamers, no. for every average joe that gets a couple of games after a day of work, or studying, or plainly doing nothing, when you collect your courage to press that "find game" button all these intense feelings overwhelm you as if something unique is happening every single time. you will never hear a cod or diablo or wc3 player discussing or floating around a bad match more then 30 minutes lets say, but when someone takes down your strategy, your timings, your (in your oppinion) flawless macro, it's so crushing and so devastating you never forget it. it's like a nice quote from Rounders "In Confessions of a Winning Poker Player, Jack King said, Few players recall big pots they have won -- strange as it seems -- but every player can remember with remarkable accuracy the outstanding tough beats of his career." this applies perfect to the sc2 player, be it pro gamer or casual one. This intense way of feeling for a game is something blizzard knows best of using. Harvesting raw emotions from the player and emerging him in a "universe" that he can't find anywhere else. I know i'm a bit biased because i friggin love this game, but believe it or not, we all get past our tilt stages, and continue to grind our asses to get that perfect game where we crown ourselves as kings.
It's a corny post but my troll shield is still working.
|
I don't understand how people are getting destroyed? Everyone's win/loss ratio is around 50 pct, which it should be if you are playing opponents of similar skill level. If you feel like you are getting destroyed, the losses are affecting you far more than the wins which means that the issue is that you have not learned to deal with losing in a mature manner...
edit: damn kpr you stole the words out of my mouth... the difference is with poker the individual plays because he believes he has a skill advantage and is looking to earn money (exception being addicts and people playing penny stakes for fun). Losing results in meaningful loss of both $$$ and ego.
In SC, there is no real downside to losing. A computer game should be fun whether you have trouble beating a level/opponent/etc.. or whether you win. People just become obsessed with ranks/points to the point that they not only rage when they lose but do anything possible to win (cheese) and turn what should be a fun game into a chore or a job with the goal being to grind as many points as possible. Lots of individuals ITT need to re-evaluate why they play this game and whether it's healthy for them to continue doing so if they can't struggle with losing so much.
|
Losing in SC2 is worse than getting griefed in an FPS.
|
I'm sorry everyone, but only Bronze to Silver (maybe gold) will agree with this post, atleast in my opinion.
The idea that "these guys play all day long, but I should still win once in awhile even If I can't manage to get to 50food without supply blocking 3 times" Honestly... any diamond or Plat player will generally say, what a load of bull. People devote time to this game, that's why you will never catch them.
Not just playing, living. To top 200 players (jinro huk) SC2 is there life, it's there money maker and your saying that you should win once in awhile vs them anyway? hahaha, go tell that to Sydney Crosby or Mike tyson about their respective sport (or thing they trained for A LOT)
This post is a joke, no offense... The only valid point was the fact that chat channels are not used, but hey surprise surprise we all know that.
Please, I supported your last 2 posts on whining because I generally thought maybe they are valid. This is just stupid, I guess third times the charm, stop posting such ridiclous shit.
|
On January 04 2011 09:17 tskarzyn wrote:
Lots of individuals ITT need to re-evaluate why they play this game and whether it's healthy for them to continue doing so if they can't struggle with losing so much.
There is why I dont think the expansions will be as successful ...
most times I win I get raged
most times I lose I get bm'ed too =X
|
@tskarzyn i don't think people like me, who play this game as a hobby, really care about the points, I know I don't. but i think all of them grind for that perfect match, that feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. I think day9 has a daily about this and i 100% agree with him: when you win at this game, it's awesome because u did something yourself, you managed to outhink your opponent, it's a wonderful feeling and when you lose it sucks because u feel u have failed yourself. it's not in a dramatic way, but no one can say after a loss that they didn't feel that gut feeling of "fuckitall", be it an at the edge game or a way beyond you level game. that's why this is so cool and appreciated, it makes you experiencing loss, failure, success, triumph at a macro level without any drawbacks. if you fail at your job or if you fail a friend or familly member, it's painfull, but when you fail at this game you can try and try again. that's what attracts, it enables you to experience all kind of feelings without a drawback. but i think i'm getting off topic.
on topic, every losing streak for me is a learning experience, and if i get on tilt, i take a break, judge and analyze my play, and begin all over again trying to outmatch myself.
|
I think that the ladder resets should help with this.
I wouldn't care about pixelpoints if I knew they were going away next month anyways.
For me, the biggest one is rating for sure, I don't want to lose any games so I never play any games.
|
On January 04 2011 09:55 MERLIN. wrote:
I'm sorry everyone, but only Bronze to Silver (maybe gold) will agree with this post, atleast in my opinion.
The idea that "these guys play all day long, but I should still win once in awhile even If I can't manage to get to 50food without supply blocking 3 times" Honestly... any diamond or Plat player will generally say, what a load of bull. People devote time to this game, that's why you will never catch them.
Not just playing, living. To top 200 players (jinro huk) SC2 is there life, it's there money maker and your saying that you should win once in awhile vs them anyway? hahaha, go tell that to Sydney Crosby or Mike tyson about their respective sport (or thing they trained for A LOT)
This post is a joke, no offense... The only valid point was the fact that chat channels are not used, but hey surprise surprise we all know that.
Please, I supported your last 2 posts on whining because I generally thought maybe they are valid. This is just stupid, I guess third times the charm, stop posting such ridiclous shit.
I think you're confused?
|
I think you're confused also? For stating I'm confused, but not explaining how... Very ironic.
|
On January 04 2011 10:53 MERLIN. wrote:
I think you're confused also? For stating I'm confused, but not explaining how... Very ironic.
Well to be honest it doesn't look like you read any posts whatsoever... So yeah I'm confused as to where your post is coming from. So all I can really say is how confused you must be.
|
This is not unique to starcraft 2, it exists in every single game....
The comparisons to other games is just incorrect. It's comparing a game of sc2 to a SINGLE KILL in FPSes, which is absurd; like another poster pointed out, the equivalent to that kill in a game of an FPS would be like a person killing a pair of zerglings. If you're going to refer to a whole game of sc2, then common sense points out that it'd be compared to a game of CoD or Team Fortress.
Tilting heavily exists here.
For instance, the God point: a n00b player could easily have some random kill off a pro. The end score will still be something like 50-1, much like you may kill 2 of TLOs Zerglings, but he'll overall dominate the map by killing 100 units in your army.
"Reward for sticking in the game."
Um, not really, even if you still get a kill or two, if you're getting slaughtered, then your KDR plummets.
"Can't see your losses"
See above, KDR is available in pretty much every game.
Etc.
|
I'm sad to say that your almost every point (every point including a comparison to world of warcraft note:every point) is horribly false.
First of all, we should be comparing the PvP elements of the games, not the aspects where you play against an AI.
In every game of PvP, there is a winner and a loser. Therefore there is always a cost for defeat. Whether it be something as abstract as pride or hard-earned points or rating.
Failure is never a private thing. Ever heard of "the armory"? Actually I'd say losing is more private in StarCraft 2 than World of Warcraft. The statistics of pretty much any game you have ever played for the past 6 months are publicly shown.
And last but not least, a full-geared warrior (customized for pvp), will never, ever, ever, ever, lose to a badly geared mage with equal skill level. Never. Possibly if the skill level would be knowing how to press 1, whereas the mage would then shoot frostbolts and the warrior swing in the air at a distance, but that is just ridiculous.
Losing is never hard if you don't have any expectations of yourself. Most wow players don't (as in being oriented towards PvE, which is a joke and any SC2 player who can achieve Gold, which itself is a joke for anyone remotely competitive, will manage flawlessly).
Again, don't compare totally unsimilar aspects of two widely different games and do not base an entire wall-of-text whine post solely on assumptions and prejudgement.
|
On January 03 2011 19:45 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:16 huameng wrote:
In tournament chess, no one actually gets checkmated. People resign just like in Starcraft. I think every point you listed works against chess as well, yet I don't really know any tilt monkeys in chess. I think the difference is that Chess is a game of perfect information with no sudden surprises, and it's those surprises that trigger tilt. Unless you're really bad at Chess, you're never going to go from thinking you're going to win to being checkmated instantly. In Starcraft, you can go from playing a seemingly perfect game to dead from DTs in a second. In poker, you can get the money in good and lose to a 1 in 990 runner-runner.
As a chess player I must comment on this bit of text.
To huameng:
It is true that 90-99% of the pro games that are heavily dominated by one player is resigned. It does however not always go that way, so it is an inaccuracy to propose that "all games" end in one side surrendering.
To ShadowDrgn:
You seem to have a very basic understanding of chess.
What you say about perfect information is true, I won't deny it. But the most fundamental difference between chess and Starcraft 2 in this context seems to be the victor/loser aspect. In professional chess most games are drawed (spelling?). The highest rated players often have something like a 55-60% win rate. As Starcraft 2 is a game of kill or be killed, the analogy is horribly wrong.
I suggest you watch Viswanathan Anand vs Vladimir Kramnik, the latest world champion title games. Anand had probably not at all thought of the Knight sacrifice on G5. Defeat can come quickly and unexpectedly, even at the highest level.
EDIT:
On January 04 2011 11:20 dibbaN wrote:
In every game of PvP, there is a winner and a loser. Therefore there is always a cost for defeat. Whether it be something as abstract as pride or hard-earned points or rating.
I largely agree with your post, except for this part which you have gotten wrong. In certain situations of the arena in World of Warcraft a draw can be achieved. If the last players in each team die at the very same time a draw will be in effect. This might not seem like a very high probability, but might I remind you the difference between 0 and 1?
|
For the surrender button bit Hon has a concede button that the team unanimously must admit defeat with.
|
On January 04 2011 04:54 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'm replying because I'm interested, I would really like to hear how you think Blizzard could learn from iRacing (haven't played it), because it sound's like you think Blizzard could learn in the way of offering better statistics, instead of just win/loss.
You're certainly spot on with respect to the difference in the available stats compared to iRacing. That said, there are a few items that would transfer directly between the two.
First off, iRacing shows actual ratings (it's a bastardised ELO) for drivers. Said ratings aren't perfect, but they are sufficiently representative as to be meaningful, and all results are shown with pre and post race ratings, so after a few races (ie. long enough to work out how the system works) you know exactly how much rating you're putting "on the line" each time you go out there. Personally, I beleive Blizz should let us see precisely how good the system thinks we are, how good it thinks our opponents are, and where the cut-off points reside for leagues as it removes the rather unpleasent ambiguity we've got at the moment, and also removes the possibility of unpleasent shocks. It only takes a brief glance at any general SC2 related forum (including here) to find a couple of "I'm gold, all my recent opponents have been diamond or plat, I keep winning, I've not been promoted" threads, and it presumably follows (as someone's got to lose those games) there are higher league players out there worried about playing as they've got no idea how close or otherwise they are to losing their ratings. Put the raw numbers on show and the fear of the unknown goes away.
Second, there's the general attitude to stats, otherwise known as Blizzards reluctance to give us any. iRacing offers an awful lot of stats regarding your own performance, best performances, worst, safety record, yada yada. It's all there, you can't hide from it, but you can judge progress by it. That attitude towards openess, I reckon, could make a big difference to the feel of SC2. Just to pick a few, win\loss ratios on per race basis, average rating of opponent faced, highest rated opponent beaten (or lowest lost to), average duration of winning game, average duration of losing game, average APM, etc., all with the ability to restrict to last N matches, would, in my opinion, really help players judge their progress, and also help them understand who they just played against. Yes, it's fair to say that lifting the veil in this way does mean there's nowhere to hide, but given the competitive nature of SC2, I don't really see that as a problem.
Then we've got the way they handle divisions, which is somewhat controversial, primarily because their userbase is a tad to small to work properly with the system in place - for SC2, it's easily big enough. Without going into to much detail, a season is 12 weeks, and drivers as assigned to a division (and remain in it for the duration of the season) based on their rating at the point when they first race during the season. Ignoring the actual division scoring system*, the nice aspect of this vs. SC2 is you know precisely when the season ends and so have something to aim for - it might be an attempt to maximise your position, a "sod it, I'll get ready for next season", or a concerted attempt to move the rating up to get promoted or escape relegation. Personally, I think there are two lessons for Blizz in this one, both of which relate to a fixed and transparent season length...
Currently, divisions are a continuous affair, with seasons end being "at some point" and promotion and relegation happening "at some point, depends on who's active plus some numbers we're not showing you". Show the players their actual ratings, run one month seasons, then promote and relegate based on a visible rating moving average against a published target (even if it's a moving one, it should be visible), don't allocate division places to players until they actually play in a season (so no dead players clogging up divisions) and you've suddenly got a system where players have a series of defined, time-limited objectives to aim for, rather than just the nebulous "stay in the top ten, maybe get promoted, try and win stuff" we have now.
I suppose, to sum it all up, SC2 is, by it's very nature, a highly competitive environment. The name of the game's (excluding the self-evident 'hf') to get better, and once in game there's absolutely no avoiding it unless your opposition falls asleep at the keyboard. Currently, we have a very schizophrenic environment in which the actual game part is deeply competitive and extremely hard to hide from (thanks to replays), and yet the way in which we're ranked and rated is very fluffy and carebeary - all the "risk and reward" is in the actual games themslves. A more open attitude to stats, and more fluid division system with defined end dates, wouldn't necessarily make losing easier to take**, but it would increase the rewards for winning as players would be able to see themselves moving towards a goal, rather the current system where hope and imagination play a central role.
One last plus...
Publish actual ratings and the best of the best become a lot more visible. This, in my opinion, would be potentially very good indeed for SC2 as an eSport as it would make it easier for up and coming genuine best-of-the-best types to make a name for themselves and get noticed.
* Because it wouldn't suit SC2 at all as it's designed to handle a comparatively low number of results and removes any notion of "he who races the most wins" - one top result per week will win you a division, twenty reasonable ones won't.
** Easier to comprehend and rationalise, but it's still a loss, and if you hate losing, you're still gonna hate it.
|
I still tilt when I just lost to a cheap cheese.
The thing is, especially when he cheesed me so cheaply, I should admit that he played well since I did not noticed in time how he cheesed me. So I want to rage "that guy got the win with NO SKILL" but at the same I know that is entirely my fault he got away with this. Then I just tilt.
Sometimes I also get angry when I had 3 hatches and just doubled expanded again and build a good army but then he appears with the perfect counter and just roflstompes me. I already moved an Overlord in place to scout, sadly I forgot to actually scout. So I focussed for 15-20 real-time minutes only to get a loss because I overlooked his tech change.
|
On January 04 2011 11:22 Believer wrote:
To ShadowDrgn:
You seem to have a very basic understanding of chess.
What you say about perfect information is true, I won't deny it. I do Chess is no game of full information because you don't know what the opponent intents to build up. You have vision of the full board (but must remember if castling is still possible, a photograph of a chessboard with its pieces does not always fully describe the state of the game.)
If the opponent moves the knight to D4, you don't always know why he did it. May be he is trying to protect a field which will be important 4 or 5 moves later. May be it is a random move to confuse you (though that is probably not likely in high-level tournaments.) You cannot always know with just a look at the board.
|
On January 03 2011 22:39 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 17:12 alphafuzard wrote:
Mostly agree I suppose, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "God is touchable" point.
Noobs aren't going to be killing the TLO's of Call of Duty. Ever.
And if they did, it would be like a noob killing one zergling, but losing 50 - still not a shot in hell of victory.
Hopefully the social aspect is improved with chat rooms and group replays. Definitely going to disagree here. I've played quite a few games competitively, but never at a high level. And I've definitely killed some "gods" of their sports in various FPS, in competitive and casual settings. I've killed DaHang twice(in CA, not duel, but still), walter and dtK once apiece in duel, and jones, kgb, Wintergr33n(I think, lol, EG member I thik, been a little while ago) and a bunch of other "pro" ctf players quite often in casual CTF games, and in one competitive game. In CSS I 1 v 3'ed an ESEA invite group in a casual game, where I had the bomb down and they were trying to defuse. I've also killed single "professional" players in ESEA pugs quite often. And all these players are of the caliber that if the same level/skill difference we were at was applied to SC2, I would get hardcore raped. In FPS games, a single lucky shot like a flick 1 deag can get you a kill and win you a round vs a professional player. In SC2, making a single lucky play won't win you anything but another 15 seconds of time you would survive.
I've never played any FPS games seriously but isn't the idea the same?
Win the battle, lose the war. Even if you get a lucky headshot occasionally, does that mean you won the game? I think not (or else the game would kind of suck....)
|
This game is tough because when you lose (1v1 at least) you have nobody else to blame but yourself. It's easy to run through team games and just believe you lost due to a long list of complicated factors, most of them being related to your "terrible teammates". No joke, one of my friends will play 2v2 Halo, he'll have 3 kills 13 deaths and his teammate will go +9 and he'll find a way to make it seem like they lost b/c of his teammate. I promise this guy will NEVER play 1v1 in this game b/c when he loses... who's he going to blame?
|
Great post, you definitely touched on everything I thought of and so much I didn't. Very insightful indeed.
|
just lost 5 in a row....2 hrs of my life gone again
User was warned for this post
|
On March 13 2011 16:22 CalvinStorm wrote:
just lost 5 in a row....2 hrs of my life gone again
Did you really just bring back this thread to say that? There's an IRC channel where you can go and say stuff like this, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
