|
On July 28 2011 13:43 imareaver3 wrote:
Unnecessary, and breaks the competitive feeling of the ladder. No one should get competitive bonuses (like vetoes, which are incredibly significant given how much playing on maps that are good/bad for your race affect your play) based solely on how much they grind the ladder; the fact that losers get experience just encourages portrait farming; not only will you get those little portraits, but you'll get these 50 perks as well! I suppose that a few extra cosmetic rewards wouldn't hurt too much (Although they'd be distracting, and would need an option to turn them off), such an elaborate system is not needed.
I feel like an extra veto could definitely be an appropriate reward. The map pool is larger than ever, and contains mostly massive 4 player maps that are really hard to play on sometimes.
The in-game cosmetic changes would be very minor. VERY. You wouldn't be able to make a marine look like a marauder, or make it be covered in rainbows and such.
|
Personally I don't like this very much. I for one don't play much and with this level system I may not be playing vs people my level. Also the ingame score, IMO is not the most accurate thing to go by.
Overall, just giving additional ingame bonuses to some and not all really just kills the feel of the game being competative and makes it feel more rpg'ish imo.
|
I think that simply adding in more portaits/decals would be enough. I mean it's stupid to have to wait til you have 500 wins just to get new decals for your units. I mean that's a TON of games. And thats games WON, not just total played.
Personally I would love more portaits and decals and I have a few friends who play casually who would play a lot more if this were the case aswell.
As for the OP: I think the idea is okay but giving experience points based on the points and the end of the game isn't a good idea. What if someone is good at winning 5 min games? The scores of those games won't be very high but if someone loses a 30 min game they'd be getting way more experience anyway because you just get more points that way.
|
I don't like it. I don't need artificial levels to keep me or not to keep me in the game.
If the game is fun you'd play it regardless and its only natural that players numbers would falls from season to season. There are people that go on to play other games, just stop playing or go to a break.
|
On July 28 2011 13:52 Nub4ever wrote:
Personally I don't like this very much. I for one don't play much and with this level system I may not be playing vs people my level. Also the ingame score, IMO is not the most accurate thing to go by.
Overall, just giving additional ingame bonuses to some and not all really just kills the feel of the game being competative and makes it feel more rpg'ish imo.
Read the entire post. Not just the title and the end.
|
On July 28 2011 13:56 genius_man16 wrote:
I think that simply adding in more portaits/decals would be enough. I mean it's stupid to have to wait til you have 500 wins just to get new decals for your units. I mean that's a TON of games. And thats games WON, not just total played.
Personally I would love more portaits and decals and I have a few friends who play casually who would play a lot more if this were the case aswell.
As for the OP: I think the idea is okay but giving experience points based on the points and the end of the game isn't a good idea. What if someone is good at winning 5 min games? The scores of those games won't be very high but if someone loses a 30 min game they'd be getting way more experience anyway because you just get more points that way.
The idea is that as a game goes on, your score doesn't necessarily exponentially increase.
5 minute games are 5 minutes of work, and provide 5 minutes of points
30 minute games are 30 minutes of work, and provide 30 minutes of points.
|
just a question, do we really want players who need constant rewards?
|
When I play football, I'm angry that when I win I don't get a new pair of high heels and a skirt, so I can play dressup.
|
The reason those games need these silly systems is because you're playing against AI, which is innately dull and predictable. Thankfully, sc2 is player vs. player, and thus can do without such ridiculous additions.
|
|
|
I absolutely love this idea. When I win games I don't really feel like I'm actually progressing through anything, and winning 1000 games to get a portrait when I'm at like 100 games definitely isn't a motivational booster.
|
On July 28 2011 14:05 Lochat wrote:
When I play football, I'm angry that when I win I don't get a new pair of high heels and a skirt, so I can play dressup.
Sounds like a personal problem, princess.
On July 28 2011 14:05 dangm24 wrote:
just a question, do we really want players who need constant rewards?
I suppose we could do without them, but do we really want SC2's player base to steadily decline until its only the few thousand who play 1000+ games a season because they just absolutely love to play? We're talking about a steep decline.
SC2 sold 1.5M copies in NA in the first 2 days of its release. We're apparently at less than half that amount of players in NA now.
On July 28 2011 14:06 Wren wrote:
The reason those games need these silly systems is because you're playing against AI, which is innately dull and predictable. Thankfully, sc2 is player vs. player, and thus can do without such ridiculous additions.
WoW and Call of Duty aren't vs. AI games.
One is an MMORPG
One is an online FPS.
|
One thing that distinguishes SC2 from WoW is that in WoW nearly every minute of time you put into grinding will reward you in some way. Even if you are really lazy, you will still gain XP if you kill mobs. In SC, merely putting in time is not enough to make you better. You have the put in quality time. I can see how this deters players from the game. Nobody wants to feel like their effort is resulting in nothing. To try and capture that essence of WoW in attempt draw players into SC2 would be nice, but I don't think its the right way to approach this game.
Not everyone is "made" to play SC2; we shouldn't deceive players with "fancy" rewards if SC2 is not the game for them. After a while people will realize that these rewards are just a gimmick (like achievements) and Blizzard will be faced with the task of adding more new and exciting "content" (something I don't want them to spend their time on as I would prefer they devote that money towards improving balance).
Don't get me wrong. I think this could draw some players into the game, but I think it would be only temporary. Once the "max level" is reached either the player will have developed an appreciation for the game (which would be great!), or they will just become bored that their grind is over and leave for another game (which I think is more likely).
I think we just have to accept that RTS is not the most popular genre of game out there (although of course its the best!). As long as Blizzard keeps patching there will be a good enough player pool for competitive play.
|
I'd rather not earn rewards in this way. All that does is make you play the game for reasons other than personal enjoyment, and that's never a good thing. The portraits we unlock now are extremely minor rewards, and I don't think unlocks really need to go any further than that. Plus, with an exp system like that, you're going to run into even more of this than you do now:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SD61U.jpg)
If a game gets boring, it doesn't mean it needs a shiny new level up system with rewards to keep people playing, because then people will just play it for the rewards even though the game isn't fun.
|
sounds pretty decent kinda makes me think im playing cod trying to get the next new gun or the new prestige bullcrap but it gives extra incentive for people to play so more people playing = more thumbs up 
|
I don't really get the point, people play games because they think it's fun. Giving them a shiny zergling isn't going to make them stay if they aren't enjoying the game.
|
We don't need a skinner box for sc2. I can see my rank increase as I get better, and anyone who doesn't find that rewarding shouldn't be playing a competitive RTS.
|
Having some players unlock different "skins" for their units/buildings could confuse some of the players and could even make things confusing when viewing pro events.
Imagine viewing a ZvZ and having a roach war, but one player has "fancy" roaches.
In this case it would look like the players were going down different tech paths, even though they actually aren't.
That having been said, you could still turn off the feature in-game so that if your opponent had "special' units, you could choose to not have your game client show the different unit,but show the vanilla unit instead. (i.e. he can see his new fancy unit representation, but you and any observers see the normal one if they have toggled the off switch).
|
On July 28 2011 14:09 Divergence wrote:
One thing that distinguishes SC2 from WoW is that in WoW nearly every minute of time you put into grinding will reward you in some way. Even if you are really lazy, you will still gain XP if you kill mobs. In SC, merely putting in time is not enough to make you better. You have the put in quality time. I can see how this deters players from the game. Nobody wants to feel like their effort is resulting in nothing. To try and capture that essence of WoW in attempt draw players into SC2 would be nice, but I don't think its the right way to approach this game.
Not everyone is "made" to play SC2; we shouldn't deceive players with "fancy" rewards if SC2 is not the game for them. After a while people will realize that these rewards are just a gimmick (like achievements) and Blizzard will be faced with the task of adding more new and exciting "content" (something I don't want them to spend their time on as I would prefer they devote that money towards improving balance).
Don't get me wrong. I think this could draw some players into the game, but I think it would be only temporary. Once the "max level" is reached either the player will have developed an appreciation for the game (which would be great!), or they will just become bored that their grind is over and leave for another game (which I think is more likely).
I think we just have to accept that RTS is not the most popular genre of game out there (although of course its the best!). As long as Blizzard keeps patching there will be a good enough player pool for competitive play.
This is very well put.
|
Yeah, no one should have any sort of advantage over another player simply because they play a lot. That includes things outside of the game such as an extra map veto. Unit customization is bad, units and buildings need to be as easily distinguishable as possible. Achievements are basically enough for anyone who cares enough to want some kind of reward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
