EPTStarCraft 2 Leveling system: your input needed! - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
Furthermore, the xp distribution is terrible considering how long a bronze player would need to even reach lvl 10. More rewards would cater to the casual players who are in lowered leagues and not the hardcore gamers in master and gm, so the most important thing would be to make the rewards achievable by low league players. Also this: On July 28 2011 13:34 Emporio wrote: I feel like a more straightforward approach would be to implement battle.net run tournamnets automatically within the game client that would match up people of the same mmr or league and give point based prizes based on how far you advance. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On July 28 2011 13:46 blabber wrote: no thanks. this is the truth: people didn't stop playing because they aren't "rewarded." They stopped playing because sc2 isn't that fun. (or, it's not really worth spending time on). This mindset is much more prominent in the masters/high masters range. Do you know why BW lasted such a long time? Because it was FUN. There were no rewards or level up system. BW was simply a fun game. QFT. If it isn't fun then it isn't fun. You aren't going to trick people into playing by giving them a level system. | ||
|
lazydino
Canada331 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 29 2011 05:04 Erik.TheRed wrote: Not a bad effort, I agree that it would be nice for casual players if they had some more substantial rewards for their time investment. But I don't think that awarding "EXP" from economy, unit score, or any of those arbitrary post-game graphs is a good idea. It encourages a scrub mentality in that people won't be playing 1v1 to win, but to "farm exp". This is a competitive game where you either WIN or LOSE, and it's not fair or effective to give people bonus points because they had pretty good macro even though they lost. Defeat is sour, but it also signals a need for change/improvement, and giving people false rewards is going to scrub up the community. IMO custom games are better suited for these sort of rewards and play styles, because ranking is less meaningful and the environment is overall less competitive. A nice solution might be if blizzard implemented an "unranked ladder" kind of like what LoL has, where people could work at unlocking customizations and other fun stuff. This is true, but the incentive to win is still there. This wouldn't replace ladder or even compete with it, and you'd still get a much bigger reward for winning a game than losing a game (and playing "better" by the criteria). I think a key to this approach is rewarding people for trying and still failing. That's the part that stings the most about competitive ladder that people don't seem to understand in this topic. Many people want to get better and try to get better, but losing 3-5 games right after a long game and only having -50 points to show for it is greatly discouraging. At least in a casual scenario, people would get rested XP or something similar after a break and feel good about getting closer to their broodlord that shoots kittens. As a larger discussion, games are competitive ordeal altogether. Every game has some sort of obstacle to overcome and feel good doing so. It doesn't have to be beating some noob into the ground, but also computer AI and puzzles. You "WIN or LOSE" in Halo, WoW, and Farmville, but it doesn't sting as much because the games remind you of smaller wins in each loss. Even in a game of Tetris, where you lose every game, the severity of losing isn't always "You destroyed 0 rows!" Having games with fuzzy secondary outcomes can only encourage people to keep playing through losses. | ||
|
Loliser
Canada58 Posts
I do really really think this would add more incentive to ladder | ||
|
Radamh
United States3 Posts
If Blizzard wants to see an increase in saturation of 1v1 play it either needs to dumb down the game(which will never happen) or provide more learning tools for players. This game is hard enough to learn when you have to watch streams, read forums, memorize build orders, try to mimic what pro's do then not have the skill to handle a 6 pool every third game. Again anyone can pick up a controller and kill people in call of duty and be good based on how much you've played games in the past. You could take the best WOW/COD players in the world and most of them wont start off better than silver. But any GM SC2 player would be better than the average player at a FPS. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
On July 29 2011 05:28 aksfjh wrote: This is true, but the incentive to win is still there. This wouldn't replace ladder or even compete with it, and you'd still get a much bigger reward for winning a game than losing a game (and playing "better" by the criteria). I think a key to this approach is rewarding people for trying and still failing. That's the part that stings the most about competitive ladder that people don't seem to understand in this topic. Many people want to get better and try to get better, but losing 3-5 games right after a long game and only having -50 points to show for it is greatly discouraging. At least in a casual scenario, people would get rested XP or something similar after a break and feel good about getting closer to their broodlord that shoots kittens. As a larger discussion, games are competitive ordeal altogether. Every game has some sort of obstacle to overcome and feel good doing so. It doesn't have to be beating some noob into the ground, but also computer AI and puzzles. You "WIN or LOSE" in Halo, WoW, and Farmville, but it doesn't sting as much because the games remind you of smaller wins in each loss. Even in a game of Tetris, where you lose every game, the severity of losing isn't always "You destroyed 0 rows!" Having games with fuzzy secondary outcomes can only encourage people to keep playing through losses. Well, chess doesn't do any of this, and yet it maintains a large player base. The satisfaction is in the playing of beautiful games, analyzing games for possible improvements, and ultimately improving. I don't see why the same can't be the case for SC2. | ||
|
KronICStarcraft
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
Hossinaut
United States453 Posts
Or as Protoss, when you warped in units, instead of saying like "En taro Tassadar" (Zealot) they'd say "En taro "___" players name type of thing....? its a really cool idea, don't understand how or why its necessary though :D | ||
|
Wire
United States494 Posts
i would upgrade charge every game. zerg going mutas? better get my blueflame charge. | ||
|
Torpedo.Vegas
United States1890 Posts
But in game modifications of units such that both players observe the change would impact the competitive side of things since decisions need to be made split second and players rely on familiar movements and shapes to make a quick assessment of the situation. | ||
|
Auross
Brazil104 Posts
| ||
|
sTsCompleted
United States380 Posts
On July 28 2011 13:33 Kamuy wrote: No thank you to changing in game looks. Menu's, single player, w/e is fine. Do not like the idea of different looking ingame units though. I think he means that YOU can change. Not like collectors thor, only the player who has their unit customized sees it like that. You would see it as however you have it set. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 29 2011 05:56 whatthefat wrote: Well, chess doesn't do any of this, and yet it maintains a large player base. The satisfaction is in the playing of beautiful games, analyzing games for possible improvements, and ultimately improving. I don't see why the same can't be the case for SC2. Because SC2 isn't a game that has been around for literally centuries. SC2 has to compete with literally 100s of other games, and 1000s of other modern ways to spend your time. Chess remains a staple of competitive intellectual battle, something SC2 will never become. SC2 will always be closer to a sport, requiring gimmicks and modifications so people of all skill levels can and will enjoy it. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 29 2011 06:06 Hossinaut wrote: I think it could be a good way to get and keep more people involved, but I personally won't care- there has to be some motive for the people that play a lot, for the pros, etc. I think the customizable ling/ marine idea is cool, but I think it could be cool if you could like as Zerg change the way creep looked- i have no idea how that would work... Or as Protoss, when you warped in units, instead of saying like "En taro Tassadar" (Zealot) they'd say "En taro "___" players name type of thing....? its a really cool idea, don't understand how or why its necessary though :D I still personally enjoy my idea of broodlords shooting kittens instead of broodlings. =P | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On July 29 2011 05:22 Najda wrote: QFT. If it isn't fun then it isn't fun. You aren't going to trick people into playing by giving them a level system. errrrrr.... WoW? also, a lot of people think it is still fun, which is pretty f***ing rare for a game 1 year after its release. | ||
|
Auross
Brazil104 Posts
On July 29 2011 05:56 whatthefat wrote: Well, chess doesn't do any of this, and yet it maintains a large player base. The satisfaction is in the playing of beautiful games, analyzing games for possible improvements, and ultimately improving. I don't see why the same can't be the case for SC2. I think before we begin dreaming about SC2 getting close to chees in importance, number of players or as a form of intelectual challenge, we must first dream of it becoming a resonating sucess as a videogame. You might be happy with the way things are right now, and even despise the average Joe whokeeps complaining about balance, doesn't know build orders, has little to no idea of what he does ingame and "lol, just plays for funz m8". But don't illude yourself - these are the type of people we need. These are the ype of people who will see a game in a while, increase the numbers and ake sponsors more likely to pay for tournaments, which pay pros and keep the scene going foward. What we need is a system close to WoW's, where there are so many "casuals" (I don't mean this in a pejorative way) playing that hardcores keep getting a quality product. I fear that, if we don't start catering to the masses now, in a few years there will be so few players in SC2 that it won't be economically viable for anyone to sponsor a major tornament/team. Once that happens, pro gamers will move on to other RTSs, and even the most dedicated players will follow them. PS: To whomever said "SC1 lasted that long because it's FUN, SC2 ain't no fun blablabla..." SC1 didn't. Aside from Korea, in which it was able to gainenough momentum at the early years to keep the comunity going on, i t pretty much died out. Don't say it still has a lot of players, because your view is skewed by being at team liquid, likely the place were you can get to know the most foreigner SC1 players . | ||
|
Banchan
United States179 Posts
 I think rewards like that would make leveling up "worth it," because quite frankly a lot of people, myself included, would not care to have things like alternate skins or sounds | ||
| ||
