EPTAnother example is the NCAA tournament. No one gets excited when a 5 seed crushes a 12 seed, but if the 12 seed happens to win, its on espn and people remember it for the rest of the tournament.
[Spoilers] Is SC2 too volatile ? - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RedDeckWins
United States123 Posts
Another example is the NCAA tournament. No one gets excited when a 5 seed crushes a 12 seed, but if the 12 seed happens to win, its on espn and people remember it for the rest of the tournament. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On March 17 2011 03:51 Numy wrote: Poker isn't a RTS game. I don't see how you can bash his opinion by talking about Poker. If you want to bash his opinion at least talk about what he said and how it relates to Starcraft2. Well people are always promoting SC2 as a sport. My point is you can have the sport with the luck factor and it can be huge so the luck factor isnt necessarily a bad thing... in fact it can make it more exciting. Poker is strategy based, with very little information available to you about your opponents. If a game like that can be succesful than the volatility of SC2 doesn't concern me at all. If anything it makes it better and more spectator friendly. A hardcore fan of a sport will tune in no matter who their favorite team is playing. A casual fan often won't tune in to watch a game where they know the result. So in Broodwar when Flash played... oh I don't know... anyone but jaedong... its really easy for a casual spectator to just skip over it and not watch. Having bigger skill gaps at the top is not good for competition. Take the NBA right now.. BORING AS FUCK and they're always having rumors of cutting out 4 teams to make the competition stronger. No one shows up to watch the Kings play the Lakers anymore and its because its not volatile enough. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On March 17 2011 03:59 IdrA wrote: being forced to play percentages and educated guesses is fine when tournaments, or income through online play, consists of hundreds or thousands of hands. things average out, people who make correct decisions win in the long run. when losing a bo3 eliminates you from a tournament its not so good. So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner? | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
The skill scale is too small, lots of wins come from «originality» within a very closed system. It isn't sustainable in the long run. The last time I saw a really original, new, and efficient build was 3 months ago. | ||
|
HowSoOnIsNow
Canada480 Posts
I believe in you MVP. Now he should think of participating in the NASL. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:16 Jayrod wrote: thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner? a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid. | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner? he's not saying more competitions...he's saying more games to determing the winner. a BO3 when chance is so high isn't an accurate determinant of skill. Poker overides most of this problem with the fact that 1000's of hands are played over the course of a single tournement. Since this can't realisticaly be done with SC2 then one must consider taking measures to remove some elements of chance. | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
Now SC2 is so difficult it gets to point of "uncontrollable randomness"? Some day I have to keep a log of how trends change, just so that I can copy/paste what people said just 1 month ago. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:10 Innovation wrote: @ Idra Is this pie in the sky dreaming or do you feel there is any legitmate chance something like this could exist. Is it even relevant? I agree with many of your assertions having played 12 years of broodwar as well. Do you have any suggestions that could get past the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Blizzard is in when it comes to their game? it'll never happen, if it could it wouldnt be particularly bad i dont think | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
It was like this in SC1 too; if you're good, you have about a 60% winrate, if you're really good you have 70% or so, if you're dominating everyone then you have 80% or higher (bonjwa!!!). | ||
|
SilentDrop
Brazil29 Posts
On March 17 2011 03:59 IdrA wrote: being forced to play percentages and educated guesses is fine when tournaments, or income through online play, consists of hundreds or thousands of hands. things average out, people who make correct decisions win in the long run. when losing a bo3 eliminates you from a tournament its not so good. Thats pretty much what i said 5 posts above yours. They should increase the number of games, i think. | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
Wait, I remember there being a tens and tens pages long thread of people complaining that SC2 is too simple compared to SC:BW. Now SC2 is so difficult it gets to point of "uncontrollable randomness"? Some day I have to keep a log of how trends change, just so that I can copy/paste what people said just 1 month ago. That is not at all what is being argued here....the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult and scouting needs to be made more accessable. | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:24 Innovation wrote: That is not at all what is being argued here....the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult and scouting needs to be made more accessable. I don't think it was an "and" statement. If it's intended to be mechanically competitive the way BW was competitive, it needs harder mechanics, or it won't be hard enough to execute to be excited about. If it's intended to be purely strategic-type gameplay, like chess, we have to do away with hidden information (by making scouting a lot easier). I don't think anyone's saying both must happen simultaneously. I could be misstating the position, but that was my understanding. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:23 SilentDrop wrote: Thats pretty much what i said 5 posts above yours. They should increase the number of games, i think. You can't logistically, see how the three way tie last during IEM. On March 17 2011 04:18 HowSoOnIsNow wrote: Even though i hate Protoss and that i do think there`s something to be done to balance that race, we`ve seen Terrans keeping the Bio play and not really innovate in any sense. They got lazy. I`m pretty sure that a guy like MvP, a guy of his stature will find solutions and new ways of playing the matchup. I believe in you MVP. Now he should think of participating in the NASL. I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there. On March 17 2011 04:13 Jayrod wrote: Well people are always promoting SC2 as a sport. My point is you can have the sport with the luck factor and it can be huge so the luck factor isnt necessarily a bad thing... in fact it can make it more exciting. Poker is strategy based, with very little information available to you about your opponents. If a game like that can be succesful than the volatility of SC2 doesn't concern me at all. If anything it makes it better and more spectator friendly. A hardcore fan of a sport will tune in no matter who their favorite team is playing. A casual fan often won't tune in to watch a game where they know the result. So in Broodwar when Flash played... oh I don't know... anyone but jaedong... its really easy for a casual spectator to just skip over it and not watch. Having bigger skill gaps at the top is not good for competition. Take the NBA right now.. BORING AS FUCK and they're always having rumors of cutting out 4 teams to make the competition stronger. No one shows up to watch the Kings play the Lakers anymore and its because its not volatile enough. You are right, but you also need to know the playing, their personality, their style, to follow them. And you can't do that if they disappear every damn season for no reason. | ||
|
Zystra
United Kingdom79 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:20 IdrA wrote: thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid. Everyone look up a game called Company of Heroes. It is a WW2 game where mechanics and scouting hardly exist at all, but the better player ALWAYS wins because each game goes on for so long, there are so many engagments and the most consistent player throughout the game always wins. Im not saying that this is a direction to take SC2 because I personally love watching someone who has obviously spent a very long time perfecting their mechanics and getting rewards from it. But I also love the idea of there being God players who carry massive reputation who no-one can touch (e.g. Someone went on a legit 122 win streak on CoH). In SC2, this cannot happen, because the mechanics are fairly easy and one bad engagement can cost you the game which makes the game very VERY volitile and I hate randomness. For example, if I was to play vs the best player in the world at SC2, I have a chance of winning as long as I perfect 1 cheese build and he doesnt scout untill its too late. If I was to play vs one of the best SC1 or CoH players, I would lose 100% of the time with NO exceptions. Sort of off topic: I play protoss, and I really really hate PvP so much because if Starcraft 2 is volatile, then PvP is like a super volcano. That match-up is a joke in every single way, something needs to be done to stableize(Spelling please someone) it, please Blizzard, im loosing the will to live here. D: | ||
|
nvrs
Greece481 Posts
 ).Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. | ||
|
Innovation
United States284 Posts
I don't think it was an "and" statement. If it's intended to be mechanically competitive the way BW was competitive, it needs harder mechanics, or it won't be hard enough to execute to be excited about. If it's intended to be purely strategic-type gameplay, like chess, we have to do away with hidden information (by making scouting a lot easier). I don't think anyone's saying both must happen simultaneously. I could be misstating the position, but that was my understanding. If simply mechanics were to be made more difficult it would in the short term make things better but as people get towards the skill ceiling the chance factor due to lack of scouting would bring things back to the same way it is right now. probably doing both at the same time would be too dramatic, but in the long run I think both would need to occur in order to keep up with player skill. We all know that the game evolves over time and that strategies are learned that bring certain unknown imbalances into light..which are then sometimes accounted for naturaly with counters etc...that is also why Blizzard lags behind with fixes. So I agree that changing both upfront in the near term would be too much....In the long term both may be necessary. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ).Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. In football, you have more or less the same team in the champion league EVERY year, so yes it's not random. Sometime, things can't go against the odd, but it's not like the champion of 2009 will loose first round in 2010. | ||
|
BuckNuwyler
United States25 Posts
Well if the game is too hard too learn to play at a decent level (like a ubernoob who wants to be a less awfull player, e.g. a bronze player aspiring to be a bit better, like getting into gold), I think he will get annoyed if the game is way too hard to learn. The game needs to be easy to learn, but hard to master. And i kind of agree with you that the game is a bit too easy to "master" right now, but dont think we should change the macro mechanics too much to make it more difficult to master. I think however that micro should be more rewarding and more difficult. There is another thread regarding the collosus that is just awfully designed, and I think we need too have more kind of units that are difficult to use effecitvely (I think marines vs banelings is a good example of this.). I think as well that watching fantastic micro is better for the entertainment value than watching good macro for most people. [/QUOTE] I am your second example of a bronze player aspiring to be better and I am not annoyed that the game is hard to master which it is. I use hot keys, read TL, watch replays and VODs of players I respect, scout, work on increasing my apm etc... I am told I shouldn't be bronze by teammates and opponents but regardless, I love the challenge and if anything I sense the depth of the game if I AM still bronze after working on all these things since the beta playing 5-15 hours a week. This time does not include how much I watch replays and read TL, just game time. I also feel that the pros I watch have not reached their potential. If the macro has gotten so easy, why aren't we seeing 4 prong attacks with intricate micro happening on each as an extreme example. That would be very diffficult to manage along with macro but surely a genius can approach this type of mechanics. I rarely see two drops happening simultaneously because this too would be very difficult to manage along with good macro. Again, this is difficult but surely possible for someone holding down 300APM. As many have said, the maps are changing, expansions are still to come, and it is very obvious that many new strategies are developing constantly. I agree with many posters that players have not mastered the game yet and I think honestly are far from it. | ||
|
space_yes
United States548 Posts
For example here is how I envision it working: once you get ~5 idle workers a Blizzard employee will join your team and help you macro. Once you're back down to 0 idle workers they'll leave the game. Technically this is 100% feasible to implement. The real question is how much it will cost. Also, you should be able to research an upgrade at your main building so that when your opponents apm is 2 times larger than your apm the game automatically freezes for the faster player. The only thing they will see is a black screen while you will be able to play normally for the next 30 seconds. I've watched a lot of miniature golf and Starcraft 2 is a lot like miniature golf so I know what I'm talking about. | ||
| ||
