|
This idea stems from the fact that there has, apparently, been a sharp decline in the number of players from season 1 to the end of season 2. It was suggested in a thread about this drop that this is because SC2 does not reward a hardworking player in the traditional sense.
That is, if I work hard in World of Warcraft, I level, and gain access to many more quest, new gear, and more zones. Leveling from 1-85 provides hundreds of DAYS of play time worth of content.
Similarly, if I work hard in Call of Duty, I level, and gain access to new fun weapons and equipment.
Both of these games, as well as StarCraft 2, reward the player with achievements/trophies. But that isn't necessarily the reason we work hard at the game. It's fun to get achievements, but you can't hold a multi-million person audience with an occasional plaque offering its congratulations.
It is for this reason, I recommend a leveling system in StarCraft 2 that is added on top of the current game. Nothing that already exists in the system side of things (leagues, ladders, divisions, etc) will need to be removed or majorly changed. Only added to.
You level each race independently, and each game type independently. If you play Terran 1v1, you will not gain experience for Zerg 1v1, and you will not gain experience for Terran 2v2. Random will award experience to the race that is played.
You will not be put into matches based on level. This does not effect MMR. This does not effect ladder points. This does not effect bonus pool.
The idea is that we level from 1-50. This leveling is based on performance in-game.
The experience system would work something like this (Credit to aksfjh for the idea):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q5ZLm.png)
A player who wins will receive the win XP, and receive the appropriate bonus if he is ranked top 8/top 25/top 50. Either player can earn the bonus XP for having the most points in Economy, Units trained, or Structures built.
I have no experience (no pun intended) in designing a leveling system, in terms of the actual XP required to level. But as a benchmark, level 1 to level 2 would require about 1000 XP, and all levels after that will require exponentially more. (so level 2 to level 3 will require 1200, level 3 to level 4 1500, etc)
So whats the point of leveling without rewards? There would be no point!
Obviously we can't make it huge, in a call of duty-esque way. You can't say Level 2 Terrans would unlock the use of the marauder. This would break the competitive nature of the game. I'm sad to say it, but I'm not so creative that I can think of 50 rewards that don't break the game.
Lets say you get a reward at every even level.
Any in-game changes would be purely superficial, and would most likely be pre-set changes. You couldn't make a marine bigger or smaller or paint male-parts on his armor. Any texture changes on the units would be made to be reverted when you enabled "team colors". Enemies would appear as normal, red, uncustomized units.
- Level 2: Customizable "first" unit in your level 2 game type. (A Level 2 Terran 1v1 player will get to customize the looks of his marines in 1v1 games. A level 2 Zerg in 2v2 will get to customize the looks of his lings in 2v2 games. Etc.)
- Level 4:
- Level 6:
- Level 8:
- Level 10:
- Level 12: Custom soundtrack options! You may enable or disable songs that would normally play while in-game
- Level 14:
- Level 16: Custom soundtrack options! You may enable one additional song from the soundtrack that wouldn't normally play (Zerg music while playing Terran)
- Level 18:
- Level 20: Custom soundtrack options! You may enable two addition songs from the soundtrack that wouldn't normally play (from a larger selection, including campaign only songs)
- Level 22:
- Level 24:
- Level 26:Custom unit voices: Self explanatory. They'd have to be cool sounding. Maybe the option to replace them with BW voices (for appropriate units). Call it "Retro Mode". (by Divergence)
- Level 28:
- Level 30:
- Level 32:
- Level 34:
- Level 36:
- Level 38:
- Level 40:
- Level 42:
- Level 44:
- Level 46:
- Level 48: One extra map veto for the game type you leveled in (Level 10 1v1 Terran gets a fourth 1v1 veto!)
- Level 50: Customizable game menus. (Like the medic in the background thing, except you can fully customize all menus easily. Not necessarily adding your own pictures in, but you could change colors, select from many backgrounds and button types, edit border colors for all buttons and UI features, etc. The unlocked backgrounds and color scheme options are based on what race and what game type you leveled up. For instance, a Terran 1v1 player who got to level 50 may get epic pictures of Jim Raynor for his backgrounds. A level 50 Terran 2v2 player may get backgrounds of Nova. Etc.)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sskmU.png)
First off, I'd like to get feedback on the idea. Do you like it, do you hate it, can it be improved? Let me know.
Obviously not everyone will like this idea. If your criticism is negative, which I expect from half of the people who respond, just make sure its constructive.
But I also want your input on possible rewards/unlocks! Specify the level you unlock it at!
When the list of rewards is complete, I will officially send this idea to Blizzard. God knows if it will mean anything, but it's worth a try, amirite?
|
I like this idea very much. It will surely help those casuals striving for the next level.
How it could be improved: By providing clan achievements and rewards just like wow. You will have mass gamers working in little tight communities in order to progress. Win win.
Ofc to do that Bliz has first to implement clan feature,>.<.
|
On July 28 2011 13:29 Steveling wrote:
I like this idea very much. It will surely help those casuals striving for the next level.
How it could be improved: By providing clan achievements and rewards just like wow. You will have mass gamers working in little tight communities in order to progress. Win win.
Ofc to do that Bliz has first to implement clan feature,>.<.
Haha. One step at a time my friend. I'd love to see clan support too, though.
|
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.
|
First thought: ewwww
Second thought: i guess SC2 does need this to keep its playerbase -__-
|
This is actually a very cool idea. Although it may be a lot to implement. It might be something to think about for the coming expansions if Blizzards doesn't want to change multiplayer too much but still wants to add a lot of content.
|
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.
|
It's a bit disheartening that the huge majority of players need things like this, that give them the delusion of achieving something significant, to keep them playing. However, maintaining the player base is very important, so this might not be a bad idea. As long as this does not interfere with gameplay, it's all good.
|
fantastic idea, i could see where this could be useful and more entertaining for many. If i think of any ideas i'll come edit
|
On July 28 2011 13:33 tyCe wrote:
First thought: ewwww
Second thought: i guess SC2 does need this to keep its playerbase -__-
It's true though. If you work hard at SC2, and you put days of work into it, all you really get is a more shiny league symbol. Even if its considered a major accomplishment, it's not very rewarding. If I spend that time in a different game, it feels like I've accomplished a lot more because of such rewards.
|
I'm not sure how effective it would be. If people don't like to grind a ton of games then I doubt this will change their feelings. Although I like the idea of changing the pictures in the background menu without having to edit files.
They should already have the custom menus and instead spend their time on HotS or improving balance/maps/bugs/ w/e else they have to work on.
|
I love this idea. In particular small perks like more vetoes sounds so goddamn awesome. I'm fully in support of this idea, and I'll get back to you as I brainstorm some rad ideas~
|
On July 28 2011 13:38 KimJongChill wrote:
I love this idea. In particular small perks like more vetoes sounds so goddamn awesome. I'm fully in support of this idea, and I'll get back to you as I brainstorm some rad ideas~
:D awesome.
|
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'm sorry, but when I was a lad we didn't need incentives to keep playing video games, we played them becuase they were awesome and wanted to kick other peoples ass at it. Take Fifa....a game with very little in the way of 'rewards' yet still is played the shit out of every year. How about old games? Yeah you played so you unlock 'the next level' but where was this system in Counter-Strike? Or in Quake, UT? Or Age of Empires? What is it with the gaming community no that feels like it should be 'rewarded' for doing something YOU enjoy? My rewards come from winning, and the feeling of intense adrenaline that you get when you go behind but still win. The reason people are not playing SC2 isn't because theres no 'reward system', but from the fact that the modern gamer wants to be spoon fed through the game so he can be the best with little to no skill.
|
Custom units can screw up e-sports. We need constants in order to evolve the sport. One set of units, one set of rules.
But yes I agree that you need something to transition from season 1 to season 2... "XP" or whatever. Like a rank, ie. the same as in bad company 2, but meaning nothing.
|
I play to win, not to get something. Reason why I hate COD and I like halo 2-3.
|
In my opinion, there are 2 types of games. The ones, like WoW, where your total time spent playing converts into something that makes your stronger vs other players (i.e. higher lvl, better items), and ones like SC, where everyone ALWAYS starts from the same point, no matter how long they are playing.
Leveling system in SC2 is already there, and is called Achievments. If you want ultimate challenge, start working on Zen Master for some fancy new avatars. I dont thing that this game need more stuff like that. You need to be really carefull about that kind of stuff - even customizing an unit can lead (and propably will, like always in PvP games) into some exploits where unit is harder to see on some background ect.
|
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.
|
sounds pretty awesome, except that changing anything ingame wont be good. but besides that its awesome!
too bad blizzard is lazy as hell
@OptimusVale
sure, we dont need these things. but its a proven way to keep the playerbase larger and therefor more popular in general. regardless if you agree its a smart idea on blizzards part to keep players in the game.
|
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.
|
I like the idea of small rewards generally as long as they don't actually give you an advantage in the game. New menus, icons, unit colors, unit voices, soundtrack, or stuff like that could be cool.
|
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.
Very interesting and constructive feedback, I suppose you're right in a sense. Glad you've actually read the post, unlike most of the naysayers so far. The idea that this project and balance are mutually exclusive is arguable, the development team is rather very large.
Is it a gimmick? Yeah. Just like achievements, and portraits, and even the precious metal-coded league system. I feel like it could be something that not only helps bring in players, but provides some amount of amusement to that hardcore GM player who has laddered for 5000 games in the past 2 seasons. It doesn't need to be a huge, game changing addition. Small, superficial rewards, provided over time. Not as a means of sustaining the game, but just a feature which makes the game better.
It's not so much about providing shiny baubles for players to behold and enjoy. It's like an achievement itself. Something you get by playing, not something you play to get. And it would make the game feel more rewarding. Not in a "FUCK YEAH JUST GOT MY MARINE CUSTOMIZATION OPTIONS!" way, but in a "cool, I can do this now, just because I was playing already".
|
I disagree that this route is the answer. However, one thing they could do is make the current system of achievements for 500 or 1000 games be something to be a bit more proud of by removing the reward from all those players that abused the system by portrait farming
edit: also, why not just give us a ladder system based on our actual MMR so that laddering means something! My issue is that league promotion is the only reward based on MMR, and it changes very rarely (if at all once you reach your right skill plateau)
|
No to the unit, and no to the map veto.
Starcraft is a skill-based game. Unlike WoW, level cannot and should not dictate whether or not you win or lose in a fight. In WoW, a relatively new player who got his first character power leveld to 85 can steamroll an alt of a veteran player at level 40. In Starcraft, a relatively new player who made his way up to Diamond since release cannot hope to compete with the smurfs of pros.
I agree that these nifty things should be provided upon having achieved something, but the truth is: that's how achievements are now. You win X amount of times, get this portrait. You win Y amount of times, get this decal. The only valid suggestions you made (backgrounds etc.) can easily be added into the achievement system somehow.
We don't need experience points or anything like that because this is not an RPG.
|
On July 28 2011 14:14 IcedBacon wrote:
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.
Not sure if your graphics are all the way down, but the decals you get for 50000000000 wins as x race are customizations. That's the kind of thing I'm referring to. Not something huge, like my Zealots look like shrubs. That my marines have a new symbol on their armor.
|
I think a small change like adding a stupid decal to your marine would not be worth it. If people were truly motivated by just that then they would be playing all those games to unlock the pretty portraits. However I agree with you that SC2 is not a rewarding game (unless you are competitive), you get absolutely nothing for losing. I think that possible rewards could be like a in game currency for their upcoming custom game marketplace. I think the rewards would work like if you win a game you get +4 blizzard bucks, but if you lose a game you get -2 blizzard bucks. This way even though people might lose, they get more of a reward for winning so its worth the risk. It also punishes people who demote themselves solely for the purpose of gaining blizzard bucks.
|
I like your ideas, I feel that this would encourage players to stay with the game longer and eventually finding out the fun side of the game, rather than just farming those rewards.
Personally I would say rewards like "able to change in-game music" would be awesome. I would love to play zerg with the terran music just for the lol sake.
Problem is that I don't know if it would just lead to players going for mass games rather than improving themselves. 1000+games bronze is quite common, even at the small server of SEA.
I would prefer Blizzard to include a different league for different race. using me as an example: I am plat in zerg but maybe silver/gold for protoss, but I don't want to drop from plat and so I keep on playing zerg.
|
I think this is an abysmal idea. There is already similar progression in the single player, and the multiplayer is there for the competitive side. Blizzard does not care if casuals stop playing the game until Heart of the Swarm comes out, they're only getting money from the box. Progression is crucial for World of Warcraft, in Starcraft II it has no place.
|
On July 28 2011 14:25 Ruscour wrote:
Blizzard does not care if casuals stop playing the game until Heart of the Swarm comes out,
I'm sure Dustin Browder and Mark Morhaime agree.
On July 28 2011 14:25 MrDudeMan wrote:
I think a small change like adding a stupid decal to your marine would not be worth it. If people were truly motivated by just that then they would be playing all those games to unlock the pretty portraits. However I agree with you that SC2 is not a rewarding game (unless you are competitive), you get absolutely nothing for losing. I think that possible rewards could be like a in game currency for their upcoming custom game marketplace. I think the rewards would work like if you win a game you get +4 blizzard bucks, but if you lose a game you get -2 blizzard bucks. This way even though people might lose, they get more of a reward for winning so its worth the risk. It also punishes people who demote themselves solely for the purpose of gaining blizzard bucks.
That'd be cool. Maybe costly? Hm.
|
I thought of some cool and funny rewards (for the lulz):
Quake-like sound effects: When you do certain things in game, like when winning a huge battle, or even something simple like killing a scouting worker the game could play an "epic" sounding sound effect that gets you all pumped up. For example upon killing a scouting worker, some voice goes "SCOUTING DENIED!". Of course your opponent should be able to disable the sound effects. I admit this is kind of tacky, but tbh this whole system is  . It could be problematic to determine when a moment is "sufficiently epic".
End game victory music: Song plays when opponent leaves game so you can get up and dance when your one base all-in works.
Custom unit voices: Self explanatory. They'd have to be cool sounding. Maybe the option to replace them with BW voices (for appropriate units). Call it "Retro Mode".
|
This is a very good idea.
Customizable appearance and special options would be a sweet carrot in front of my donkey cart.
|
On July 28 2011 14:10 bamman1108 wrote: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: 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.
Portrait farmers (and therefore experience farmers) should actually be quite simple to deal with IMO.
Simply require that a player see through the whole game to get the reward.
If someone joins a team game and quits out, yet his team wins the match anyway, they get their reward but the quitter gets nothing if he quits.
In team games it does happen, where one player is hammered with nothing left, but his team goes on to win the game 20 minutes later. I don't expect it reasonable for him to have to sit and wait out the 20 minutes, but if he is in a situation where he has NO buildings left (loss condition normally) then he should be able to quit safely and still see his reward points as normal.
It should also be easy enough to register if he is killing his own buildings so that he can quit quickly.
Yes, this would "unfairly" punish those who drop due to bad internet, faulty computers or Battle.Net issues... but that should simply be considered an "unfortunate" additional effect of having a bad connection (in addition to actually missing out on being able to play that game)
|
Sounds like a great way to get those players with ladder anxiety to play more games, and increase the pool of skill on the ladder
|
On July 28 2011 14:34 ShatterStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:10 bamman1108 wrote: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: 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. Portrait farmers (and therefore experience farmers) should actually be quite simple to deal with IMO. Simply require that a player see through the whole game to get the reward. If someone joins a team game and quits out, yet his team wins the match anyway, they get their reward but the quitter gets nothing if he quits. In team games it does happen, where one player is hammered with nothing left, but his team goes on to win the game 20 minutes later. I don't expect it reasonable for him to have to sit and wait out the 20 minutes, but if he is in a situation where he has NO buildings left (loss condition normally) then he should be able to quit safely and still see his reward points as normal. It should also be easy enough to register if he is killing his own buildings so that he can quit quickly. Yes, this would "unfairly" punish those who drop due to bad internet, faulty computers or Battle.Net issues... but that should simply be considered an "unfortunate" additional effect of having a bad connection (in addition to actually missing out on being able to play that game)
:D very well said.
|
I don't think changing units is a very good idea, as we have seen with the collectors edition thor, the unit model does matter, its a lot harder to target scvs repairing the one with wings than the one without. However I could see customizing your commands centre/hatchery/nexus as a good reward, since theres really absolutely no effect from changing the cosmetics of a building.
|
On July 28 2011 14:20 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:14 IcedBacon wrote:
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. Not sure if your graphics are all the way down, but the decals you get for 50000000000 wins as x race are customizations. That's the kind of thing I'm referring to. Not something huge, like my Zealots look like shrubs. That my marines have a new symbol on their armor.
I would have to agree with this. Models are not changing. Only a texture is changing. It can be like CSS, the game still has a large playerbase, and modding weapons is allowed in most pugs. It is only disallowed in the competitive scene. In starcraft's case, it could be as simple as having a protoss icon on a zealots chestplate, or a zerg icon on a drone. I don't think anything beyond a texture change is a good idea though.
Obviously it's a bit late to add to WoL most likely, however it'd be a fun addition to HoTS.
|
On July 28 2011 14:34 ShatterStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:10 bamman1108 wrote: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: 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. Portrait farmers (and therefore experience farmers) should actually be quite simple to deal with IMO. Simply require that a player see through the whole game to get the reward. If someone joins a team game and quits out, yet his team wins the match anyway, they get their reward but the quitter gets nothing if he quits. In team games it does happen, where one player is hammered with nothing left, but his team goes on to win the game 20 minutes later. I don't expect it reasonable for him to have to sit and wait out the 20 minutes, but if he is in a situation where he has NO buildings left (loss condition normally) then he should be able to quit safely and still see his reward points as normal. It should also be easy enough to register if he is killing his own buildings so that he can quit quickly. Yes, this would "unfairly" punish those who drop due to bad internet, faulty computers or Battle.Net issues... but that should simply be considered an "unfortunate" additional effect of having a bad connection (in addition to actually missing out on being able to play that game)
I don't know if that's a very good example. After all, in a normal team game, everyone leaves before they are eliminated, so technically, everyone except the last person left prematurely. So maybe the solution is to not allow leaving if you leave before the halfway point of however long the game actually takes? But then what if a player legitimately sucks and gets killed right in the beginning? Or in a 3v3 where killing one player quickly is a common strategy?
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with portrait farmers. Really, it doesn't affect other people except when they are on your team and leave, setting you at a disadvantage in the long run. I think the best solution is to just replace a dropped or prematurely leaving player with a computer AI that is ranked according to the MMR of the person it is replacing. So a really bad player would be replaced with an Easy Comp, all the way up to Very Hard (since Insane is cheating).
|
i think it would appeal to a large population of the community.
in terms of fairness though, it doesn't make sense because a player who plays more isn't necessarily more skilled than someone who plays half the games as him. thats how 3000 bronze players exist.
it still sounds kinda cool though, especially since a lot of people don't care too much for portraits, so that approach isn't working.
|
On July 28 2011 14:36 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:20 Chargelot wrote:On July 28 2011 14:14 IcedBacon wrote:
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. Not sure if your graphics are all the way down, but the decals you get for 50000000000 wins as x race are customizations. That's the kind of thing I'm referring to. Not something huge, like my Zealots look like shrubs. That my marines have a new symbol on their armor. I would have to agree with this. Models are not changing. Only a texture is changing. It can be like CSS, the game still has a large playerbase, and modding weapons is allowed in most pugs. It is only disallowed in the competitive scene. In starcraft's case, it could be as simple as having a protoss icon on a zealots chestplate, or a zerg icon on a drone. I don't think anything beyond a texture change is a good idea though. Obviously it's a bit late to add to WoL most likely, however it'd be a fun addition to HoTS.
A person who understands. Thanks for finding the words I couldnt. It is just a small little addition. Something the GSL obs guy can zoom in on in the beginning of the game and let Tastosis say "Look at the crazy symbol he chose!"
|
Wow @ the amount of people who hate features. For TL, apparently, SC2 could be an ASCII graphic RTS without win/loss/point tracking, portraits, player color choices, CE features, and player aliases. Heck, we should rescind our requests for real chat channels, clan support, detailed stat tracking, etc. All of these are superficial aspects that don't actually improve the competitiveness, right? All the millions of owners of SC2 only want ladder game after ladder game to know how good they are and to get better. I mean, how could anybody else EVER have any fun any other way?!
Seriously though, this is a good idea. TL is full of haters of any kind of change. They even seem to think that vetoes ACTUALLY give people an advantage and make a sizable difference in their ladder ranking. Also, I have never heard of a player/spectator confused by CE thors against regular thors.
Overall, there's nothing wrong with adding extra incentive to play. Stuff like being able to choose ladder color and add vetoes could do a lot in getting people more involed in ladder and calming some jitters. Right now, if you lose a game, you don't gain a thing. At least XP might push people to overcome that fear to get another veto or get Vikings that shoot fireworks. After the cap out, maybe they'll overcome that overall fear and be good at the same time. It happens a lot in COD.
My only change would be to the rate based on league and an addition of points through customs. Bronze should get hardly any points compared to the rest. Custom maps should give a capped daily reward for playing one with 4+ randoms.
|
On July 28 2011 14:45 aksfjh wrote:
Wow @ the amount of people who hate features. For TL, apparently, SC2 could be an ASCII graphic RTS without win/loss/point tracking, portraits, player color choices, CE features, and player aliases. Heck, we should rescind our requests for real chat channels, clan support, detailed stat tracking, etc. All of these are superficial aspects that don't actually improve the competitiveness, right? All the millions of owners of SC2 only want ladder game after ladder game to know how good they are and to get better. I mean, how could anybody else EVER have any fun any other way?!
Seriously though, this is a good idea. TL is full of haters of any kind of change. They even seem to think that vetoes ACTUALLY give people an advantage and make a sizable difference in their ladder ranking. Also, I have never heard of a player/spectator confused by CE thors against regular thors.
Overall, there's nothing wrong with adding extra incentive to play. Stuff like being able to choose ladder color and add vetoes could do a lot in getting people more involed in ladder and calming some jitters. Right now, if you lose a game, you don't gain a thing. At least XP might push people to overcome that fear to get another veto or get Vikings that shoot fireworks. After the cap out, maybe they'll overcome that overall fear and be good at the same time. It happens a lot in COD.
My only change would be to the rate based on league and an addition of points through customs. Bronze should get hardly any points compared to the rest. Custom maps should give a capped daily reward for playing one with 4+ randoms.
Would you recommend a negative bonus for lower leagues?
Gold players earn 5% less XP
Silver players earn 10% less XP
Bronze players earn 15% less XP
Something of that sort? I feel it would really make the genuine players in the league feel bad. Perhaps instead the XP required to level would be increased by a fair amount, so the higher leagues that earn bonuses would progress at a normal rate, while the lower leagues that provide small bonuses or no bonuses level significantly slower.
Yes, no?
|
On July 28 2011 13:36 Demonhunter04 wrote:
It's a bit disheartening that the huge majority of players need things like this, that give them the delusion of achieving something significant, to keep them playing. However, maintaining the player base is very important, so this might not be a bad idea. As long as this does not interfere with gameplay, it's all good.
I disagree and agree.
I partially disagree because some people do not find SC2 fun. WC3 ladder was basically deserted(well compared to before the DotA years) in 2005+ when DotA was gaining momentum. (Take note Blizzard actually did somewhat care about hackers back then).
WC3 had levels, icons, etc but DotA didn't (it's just a more relaxing and fun game to play. Sometimes you have to do something relaxing after a rough day or something. Of course ignoring all the BM in DotA like games >.>).
And finally I partially agree because I blame TF2. Hats stealing players away from SC2 obviously. Can you get hats by playing SC2? No? Yep why waste time on SC2 when you can get hats on TF2 (although there is an item cap limit per week which is equal to about 10 hours play time :\).
As for why play SC2? Some people may find it kind of pointless if they do not find it fun. Why grind out to be a better player with a better rank for example when they do not find the game fun in the first place? (Unless they're going pro of course).
People play boring grindfest MMOs because once you're past the grind, there's potentially actual fun things you can do (PvP, PvE) or you can just play casually and grind. With SC2 there's no real incentive once you become the best players (with the exception of money which is a whole nother level of playing).
|
Amazing idea! In terms of modern day video game entertainment sc2 must follow the model of other games to keep it's player base. 100% support,
|
You could also yous this to "earn" new sound effects, or allow you to change your colors, or even change your UI (be interesting to have a Zerg U.I. and Zerg warnings (ie "Need more minerals", "Hive Cluster under attack" "Need more overlords" etc while actually playing Terran.)
And there is also the coolness of changing the background of the standard game client to predefined variants or even loading in your own images
|
I actually read everything you posted because I love this idea so much.
/sign
|
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get.
|
On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get.
No you won't. As it is you are playing games to get achievements and profile pictures already.
|
how about we have everyone be able to customize their background and leave achievements deal with everything else?
|
On July 28 2011 14:49 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:45 aksfjh wrote:
Wow @ the amount of people who hate features. For TL, apparently, SC2 could be an ASCII graphic RTS without win/loss/point tracking, portraits, player color choices, CE features, and player aliases. Heck, we should rescind our requests for real chat channels, clan support, detailed stat tracking, etc. All of these are superficial aspects that don't actually improve the competitiveness, right? All the millions of owners of SC2 only want ladder game after ladder game to know how good they are and to get better. I mean, how could anybody else EVER have any fun any other way?!
Seriously though, this is a good idea. TL is full of haters of any kind of change. They even seem to think that vetoes ACTUALLY give people an advantage and make a sizable difference in their ladder ranking. Also, I have never heard of a player/spectator confused by CE thors against regular thors.
Overall, there's nothing wrong with adding extra incentive to play. Stuff like being able to choose ladder color and add vetoes could do a lot in getting people more involed in ladder and calming some jitters. Right now, if you lose a game, you don't gain a thing. At least XP might push people to overcome that fear to get another veto or get Vikings that shoot fireworks. After the cap out, maybe they'll overcome that overall fear and be good at the same time. It happens a lot in COD.
My only change would be to the rate based on league and an addition of points through customs. Bronze should get hardly any points compared to the rest. Custom maps should give a capped daily reward for playing one with 4+ randoms. Would you recommend a negative bonus for lower leagues? Gold players earn 5% less XP Silver players earn 10% less XP Bronze players earn 15% less XP Something of that sort? I feel it would really make the genuine players in the league feel bad. Perhaps instead the XP required to level would be increased by a fair amount, so the higher leagues that earn bonuses would progress at a normal rate, while the lower leagues that provide small bonuses or no bonuses level significantly slower. Yes, no?
Simply making bronze players get no bonus for something like division rank and league. Silver gets bonus for division rank but not league, then the other leagues get bonuses for both rank and league. The rewards should be by wins/losses as well, and not in game performance, except maybe winning point categories over your opponent. For example, a gold player ranked top 8 would get +50 for a win, +10 for being gold, +15 for being top 8 (after the game), and then +10 for every category "won" (may need to rework categories to make it fair).
|
On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get.
You could easily ignore such a feature. Nothing would force you to partake in the options that it makes available. You don't NEED to put a nice icon on your marine's chest plate. But the option would be open to you.
Stop raging, and start thinking.
|
I don't understand, but ok xD
|
|
|
to people saying customized units screw up the game. the CE thor doesnt seem to cause much confusion...
|
On July 28 2011 15:00 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:49 Chargelot wrote:On July 28 2011 14:45 aksfjh wrote:
Wow @ the amount of people who hate features. For TL, apparently, SC2 could be an ASCII graphic RTS without win/loss/point tracking, portraits, player color choices, CE features, and player aliases. Heck, we should rescind our requests for real chat channels, clan support, detailed stat tracking, etc. All of these are superficial aspects that don't actually improve the competitiveness, right? All the millions of owners of SC2 only want ladder game after ladder game to know how good they are and to get better. I mean, how could anybody else EVER have any fun any other way?!
Seriously though, this is a good idea. TL is full of haters of any kind of change. They even seem to think that vetoes ACTUALLY give people an advantage and make a sizable difference in their ladder ranking. Also, I have never heard of a player/spectator confused by CE thors against regular thors.
Overall, there's nothing wrong with adding extra incentive to play. Stuff like being able to choose ladder color and add vetoes could do a lot in getting people more involed in ladder and calming some jitters. Right now, if you lose a game, you don't gain a thing. At least XP might push people to overcome that fear to get another veto or get Vikings that shoot fireworks. After the cap out, maybe they'll overcome that overall fear and be good at the same time. It happens a lot in COD.
My only change would be to the rate based on league and an addition of points through customs. Bronze should get hardly any points compared to the rest. Custom maps should give a capped daily reward for playing one with 4+ randoms. Would you recommend a negative bonus for lower leagues? Gold players earn 5% less XP Silver players earn 10% less XP Bronze players earn 15% less XP Something of that sort? I feel it would really make the genuine players in the league feel bad. Perhaps instead the XP required to level would be increased by a fair amount, so the higher leagues that earn bonuses would progress at a normal rate, while the lower leagues that provide small bonuses or no bonuses level significantly slower. Yes, no? Simply making bronze players get no bonus for something like division rank and league. Silver gets bonus for division rank but not league, then the other leagues get bonuses for both rank and league. The rewards should be by wins/losses as well, and not in game performance, except maybe winning point categories over your opponent. For example, a gold player ranked top 8 would get +50 for a win, +10 for being gold, +15 for being top 8 (after the game), and then +10 for every category "won" (may need to rework categories to make it fair).
Ah! Very good idea I think. I will try to make a comprehensive XP system like this, and if successful, will replace my current system. <3 thanks, and you'll be credited for it too.
|
i actually could less either way, i play to get better.... But I totally see the player base that would respond to this. So i think its a really good idea dude!.
my idea for like level 48- Get to hear other races music even if you arent playing them!
best idea ever? I know right
|
On July 28 2011 14:59 Emporio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get. No you won't. As it is you are playing games to get achievements and profile pictures already.
Please explain to me how that is a leveling up system?
Don't try to be all smart if you aren't going to actually read what I say.
|
I'd also like to point out that doing this sort of thing also helps player retention in the long run. Let's say you get to max level after a month of play. Are you going to just stop because you finally got your Santa broodlord, battlecruiser, and carrier? Hell no! You're going to show those off, but even after that, you've invested so much time getting to level 50 that simply quitting becomes less desirable. You've made the investment to get better rewards and consequently got better doing so, and hopefully built an auto response mechanism that rewards simply playing with the feeling of accomplishment.
|
eh. Starcraft is a competitive game. There is no progression, there are no perks, there are no weekly heroes to test drive, no alternate costumes to unlock. You are given a ball and a net, and an opponent to score against. Have fun. If you'd rather the field be littered with confetti, laughs and 1st place ribbons for everyone, go play T-ball. Here, your time is worth nothing. Only your skill. You are not rewarded for trying. You are rewarded for succeeding. And your reward is an edit to some specific set of bits somewhere in cyberspace. Is that not enough for you?
The reward is the game in itself, imo.
+ Show Spoiler + Strangely this is very similar to my outlook on afterlife/religion. weird.
|
I like the achievement system we have right now... win games, get portraits! I'm pretty sure customizable in game units is something blizzard can think on their own, and is still on the same thought bubble as user portraits. (meaning, the way people feel about portraits now is probably the same way they'd feel about customizable units, some people just dont care.)
|
I would definitely be into customizing my units' appearance with things I've earned through playing, but, as was mentioned, they would have to be clearly distinguishable from research/upgrade-based appearance changes (roaches' spikes from tunneling claws/marines' combat shields). Blizzard has stated that they want to implement more things like these in Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void, so it keeping the two kinds separate would be important. Perhaps it would work if, say, upgrade-based changes are model changes, i.e. 3D, and experience-based changes are textural.
On July 28 2011 13:44 shtdisturbance wrote:
I play to win, not to get something. Reason why I hate COD and I like halo 2-3.
I'm the same way. In my opinion, the best rewards are skill-based. You don't get them if you play poorly. You can only get them if you play well. That's the only way to be proud of the stuff you get. They don't represent all the wasted time you threw at the game, they represent to you and to everybody else that you played well.
A major problem for me is that the league system is not specific enough to give me a good sense of whether I'm improving or not. In Halo 2 and 3, because there were fifty levels, you would get feedback on whether you were improving, staying the same, or getting worse on a pretty regular basis. It was nice. Being able to see your opponents' levels before each game was nice, too. (I know you're told whether or not you're favored, but it's nicer to have something more concrete.) Also, everyone started at level 1, and, slowly, as the levels increased, players were weeded out until only so many remained standing. I like that system, I think because it imbues every player with a sense of forward momentum, like "Let's see how far this can go before this run peters out." It feels better to me than SC2's league system.
I don't think SC2 will ever get rid of the leagues, so instead I propose a sixty level system running through masters, with levels 1-9 in bronze, 10-19 in silver, etc. This comes with a lot of benefits, including knowing how close you are to being promoted, and where you stand in your league. I also propose abolishing divisions. They don't do anything.
Showing people their skill level more precisely would do wonders to improve players' motivation to play, and integrating it into the current league system would be awesome. I think this would be a great way to solve the OP's problem. What do you guys think?
|
Sounds pretty good at retaining players. And if you ask me, this wouldn't break e-sports at all, as if listening to a new sound track while playing is so OP.... and we already get to change the little emblem of our bases and units, why not allow for our units to get like a custom emblem on it if you level up enough. Kinda like how blackops allowed for your own emblem on guns, why can't we put like a custom logo? It'll be sick.
No lie though, if they added retro sounds and even retro songs, i'd grind day-in-day-out for that stuff xD
|
What if you can modify your own units, but your opponents will always see them as normal? The purely cosmetic stuff will only be visible to you.
|
Sorry, the ideas in the OP sound ridiculous and the dropoff in the ladder can no doubt be attributed to the simple fact that the game is a year older and, shock, communities tend to shrink after hitting a peak. Unless we have some figures which actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theres been a drop off on the ladder specifically because they dont get continuous positive reinforcement, this is just pure nonsense.
|
On July 28 2011 15:15 MangoTango wrote:
What if you can modify your own units, but your opponents will always see them as normal? The purely cosmetic stuff will only be visible to you.
Anymore then cosmetics.... eurgh not acceptable :/
|
On July 28 2011 15:06 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 14:59 Emporio wrote:On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get. No you won't. As it is you are playing games to get achievements and profile pictures already. Please explain to me how that is a leveling up system? Don't try to be all smart if you aren't going to actually read what I say.
Fine. What does this topic have to do with gaining "respect for your hobbies"? Maybe you should make a hobby out of improving your reading comprehension and writing skills and not SC2 if you're looking for respect.
Back on topic, I would also suggest things like advanced stat tracking as a mid level reward.
|
Despite my minimal posts (and my long time lurking) I have to say this is a terrible idea.
Do not like...
|
yeah sounds good it also encourages people for macro games if they want to level up^^
|
On July 28 2011 15:19 GenoPsydE wrote:
Despite my minimal posts (and my long time lurking) I have to say this is a terrible idea.
Do not like...
That's a cool opinion. Care to elaborate? Why is it a "terrible idea," instead of a "lackluster idea"? What makes it stick out so sorely that it ranks it among "terrible" and not simply "something I wouldn't be into"?
|
At first, I thought it would be a good idea, and then I realized why so many people stopped playing. They don't find the game fun anymore. Why? Because Leagues are used to compare e-peen size, and those stuck in lower leagues get stuck dealing with so many Win Farmers because of a system similar to what you're suggesting.
It's not to say that your suggestion is bad, realistically, this would add some enjoyment back into the game for people, but I think this would lead to even more win farming, specifically for experience in low leagues. To get a lot of points in a lower league game is far easier than legitimately trying to win the game against someone at a similar level to oneself. Because, to be frank, if there are people out there willing to win farm for a single picture, something more useful like a map veto will definitely entice the win farmers already out there, as well as other players, since that extra map veto is something I think everyone would like.
But that massive increase in win farmers, would once again lead to lower league players no longer enjoying the game. I think what Blizzard needs to do is to legitimately find out the main reasons why people don't find this game fun to play online anymore. I think removal of the win/loss ratio for Sub-Masters was a step in the right direction since people can't compare e-peens by stating their w/l ratios. But something like the ability to simply not display online stats may be something people would prefer.
|
Total Biscuit's right, all kids care about these days is 'big shiny'...
|
On July 28 2011 14:50 Goldfish wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 13:36 Demonhunter04 wrote:
It's a bit disheartening that the huge majority of players need things like this, that give them the delusion of achieving something significant, to keep them playing. However, maintaining the player base is very important, so this might not be a bad idea. As long as this does not interfere with gameplay, it's all good. I disagree and agree. I partially disagree because some people do not find SC2 fun. WC3 ladder was basically deserted(well compared to before the DotA years) in 2005+ when DotA was gaining momentum. (Take note Blizzard actually did somewhat care about hackers back then). WC3 had levels, icons, etc but DotA didn't (it's just a more relaxing and fun game to play. Sometimes you have to do something relaxing after a rough day or something. Of course ignoring all the BM in DotA like games >.>).And finally I partially agree because I blame TF2. Hats stealing players away from SC2 obviously. Can you get hats by playing SC2? No? Yep why waste time on SC2 when you can get hats on TF2 (although there is an item cap limit per week which is equal to about 10 hours play time :\). As for why play SC2? Some people may find it kind of pointless if they do not find it fun. Why grind out to be a better player with a better rank for example when they do not find the game fun in the first place? (Unless they're going pro of course). People play boring grindfest MMOs because once you're past the grind, there's potentially actual fun things you can do (PvP, PvE) or you can just play casually and grind. With SC2 there's no real incentive once you become the best players (with the exception of money which is a whole nother level of playing).
Well WC3 levels did not affect gameplay either. I am not familiar with its ladder system so I won't say any more about that. However, I play WoW and own TF2 and I know a lot of people who simply grind for the sake of grinding (achievements, hats, etc) because it makes them feel like they have accomplished something. As for your last paragraph...WoW is a grindfest through and through. Hitting the level cap is only the beginning. PvP has some variety and challenge, making it interesting, but PvE...Blizzard just made it easy so it caters to casual gamers, but requires you to run the same instances over and over. Ultimately this earns them more money that they can spend on developing games like SC and Half-Life
|
On July 28 2011 15:24 ViperaViRuS wrote:
At first, I thought it would be a good idea, and then I realized why so many people stopped playing. They don't find the game fun anymore. Why? Because Leagues are used to compare e-peen size, and those stuck in lower leagues get stuck dealing with so many Win Farmers because of a system similar to what you're suggesting.
It's not to say that your suggestion is bad, realistically, this would add some enjoyment back into the game for people, but I think this would lead to even more win farming, specifically for experience in low leagues. To get a lot of points in a lower league game is far easier than legitimately trying to win the game against someone at a similar level to oneself. Because, to be frank, if there are people out there willing to win farm for a single picture, something more useful like a map veto will definitely entice the win farmers already out there, as well as other players, since that extra map veto is something I think everyone would like.
But that massive increase in win farmers, would once again lead to lower league players no longer enjoying the game. I think what Blizzard needs to do is to legitimately find out the main reasons why people don't find this game fun to play online anymore. I think removal of the win/loss ratio for Sub-Masters was a step in the right direction since people can't compare e-peens by stating their w/l ratios. But something like the ability to simply not display online stats may be something people would prefer.
I have updated the XP system. Let me know if this changes your mind.
THE XP CHANGES HELP ADDRESS MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THIS IDEA. PLEASE CHECK THEM OUT.
|
I wouldn't care for this. None of the reward features you suggested would make me excited, the levels without rewards are just lame, and if anything the entire system might just turn me off (similar to LoL's system, which was frustrating, placing emphasis on grinding instead of skill for somebody who plays the game casually). Maybe I'm just strange, but...
I'd love to see them improve Battlenet, but in other ways! They could improve the social aspect, I'm sure, somehow making chat channels better, or maybe make it easier to play with the same players repeatedly if you had fun with a group in a TD or micro challenge or something... I don't know. But I'd rather they investigate that. Or they could improve Battlenet by integrating replay/VOD watching into the game itself, or adding streaming from major tournamenets into a page, again, inside the game itself - which would just be sooooooooo amazing, though probably coding hell. Or they could just keep improving the custom game section, the popularity system and all that.
Or... focus 100% of their attention on HotS and LotV instead. Better that than "custom soundtrack options" when I can just listen to my own music when I play
|
There is a game already for mindless zombies...
I´m happy that a a good part of the people leave. As long as there are enough people to play, im totally fine. People who like the game will play....the other will play some other things and rage there while bm for a deserved loss.
We need some more adult games....not this positive parenting for raising idiots..."Oh - you won against a "very easy" AI ....what a boy!! Here, take this fancy XY" .... meh.
I´m oldschool. Lets say: "You lose against a guy who is a league under you? Well, you get banned for 2 hours do some research on the replay."
You get the point 
|
This is a cool idea, but Blizzard has tons more things to fix than just adding a level up system. Customizing stuff would be really fun. One downside is that it is rather discouraging to bronze players, since it would take them ages to level up compared to a masters player, even when both spend the same time and have the same win ratio.
Also the 4th veto on level 10 is not a good idea, 3 vetoes is already too many. 1 or 2 vetoes would be fine, since players need to learn to adapt to the map.
|
On July 28 2011 15:24 ViperaViRuS wrote:
At first, I thought it would be a good idea, and then I realized why so many people stopped playing. They don't find the game fun anymore. Why? Because Leagues are used to compare e-peen size, and those stuck in lower leagues get stuck dealing with so many Win Farmers because of a system similar to what you're suggesting.
It's not to say that your suggestion is bad, realistically, this would add some enjoyment back into the game for people, but I think this would lead to even more win farming, specifically for experience in low leagues. To get a lot of points in a lower league game is far easier than legitimately trying to win the game against someone at a similar level to oneself. Because, to be frank, if there are people out there willing to win farm for a single picture, something more useful like a map veto will definitely entice the win farmers already out there, as well as other players, since that extra map veto is something I think everyone would like.
But that massive increase in win farmers, would once again lead to lower league players no longer enjoying the game. I think what Blizzard needs to do is to legitimately find out the main reasons why people don't find this game fun to play online anymore. I think removal of the win/loss ratio for Sub-Masters was a step in the right direction since people can't compare e-peens by stating their w/l ratios. But something like the ability to simply not display online stats may be something people would prefer. I cant help but view this as a ridiculous myth. Bronze players quit because smurfs, basically, are running rampant? Thats nonsense. Not only can I not believe that lower end play would be so overrun with better players, bronze league players are probably so bad they are only casual and mucking around. If they get so angry after a few rough losses and dont actually try to get better, guess what? They arent the kind of people who would stick around in a ladder regardless of whatever idealized world you can possibly imagine. The simply reality is some people arent cut out for ladder, and some people do not enjoy sc2 melee. Hell, some people have left sc2 all together. That is why we have noticed a drop off, not because there isnt continuous arbitrary little gifts for kids who lack any attention span, and not because the game is too meaaaaan. Seriously, any game out there you get your ass handed to and get made fun of, only on other games, you often get hacked, stalked and screamed at on a mic. sc2 is extremely passive and cuddly comparatively.
|
I really think I would rather have things like clan or tournament support on b.net, or even, God forbid, multiperson replays...
Real features, balanced gameplay, and great maps are what will retain players, NOT flashy achievements.
|
On July 28 2011 15:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:06 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 28 2011 14:59 Emporio wrote:On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get. No you won't. As it is you are playing games to get achievements and profile pictures already. Please explain to me how that is a leveling up system? Don't try to be all smart if you aren't going to actually read what I say. Fine. What does this topic have to do with gaining "respect for your hobbies"? Maybe you should make a hobby out of improving your reading comprehension and writing skills and not SC2 if you're looking for respect. Back on topic, I would also suggest things like advanced stat tracking as a mid level reward.
Because people don't want to be self-motivated. People just want a bunch of shiny doodads to give them another mindless grind to do every day. If you want sc2 to be considered something that isn't a shiny doodad for nerds, maybe you should focus on what makes it great, the gameplay. And if that is too much for you, go try an easier game.
|
On July 28 2011 15:30 chaopow wrote:
This is a cool idea, but Blizzard has tons more things to fix than just adding a level up system. Customizing stuff would be really fun. One downside is that it is rather discouraging to bronze players, since it would take them ages to level up compared to a masters player, even when both spend the same time and have the same win ratio.
Also the 4th veto on level 10 is not a good idea, 3 vetoes is already too many. 1 or 2 vetoes would be fine, since players need to learn to adapt to the map.
Moved veto to level 48.
But imagine, if there was a fourth veto, Blizzard could safely increase the size of the map pool. Allowing better maps to be added in, without removing our classic favorites.
On July 28 2011 15:31 Fr33t wrote:
I really think I would rather have things like clan or tournament support on b.net, or even, God forbid, multiperson replays...
Real features, balanced gameplay, and great maps are what will retain players, NOT flashy achievements.
I'm sorry that my idea isn't real enough. Balanced game play is impossible in the way you think of it (see: my interview with Day[9], re: day[9]), and no map will ever be loved by everyone. That said, why do people seriously believe that one feature being produced means another can't be. They have a HUGE production and development team.
On July 28 2011 15:32 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:17 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2011 15:06 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 28 2011 14:59 Emporio wrote:On July 28 2011 14:57 Eknoid4 wrote:
No. God no. Fuck No. Fuck God No.
I would stop playing sc2 the day i had to level up my account for anything.
The rewards for playing a lot are improved skills and the satisfaction that you don't suck as much as you did yesterday.
if you want to be respected for your hobbies you should just work hard at them regardless of the superfluous pixel rewards you do or don't get. No you won't. As it is you are playing games to get achievements and profile pictures already. Please explain to me how that is a leveling up system? Don't try to be all smart if you aren't going to actually read what I say. Fine. What does this topic have to do with gaining "respect for your hobbies"? Maybe you should make a hobby out of improving your reading comprehension and writing skills and not SC2 if you're looking for respect. Back on topic, I would also suggest things like advanced stat tracking as a mid level reward. Because people don't want to be self-motivated. People just want a bunch of shiny doodads to give them another mindless grind to do every day. If you want sc2 to be considered something that isn't a shiny doodad for nerds, maybe you should focus on what makes it great, the gameplay. And if that is too much for you, go try an easier game.
The two are obviously mutually exclusive.
Please, if you're not going to be constructive, go away.
On July 28 2011 15:13 iLikeYourStylez wrote:
Sounds pretty good at retaining players. And if you ask me, this wouldn't break e-sports at all, as if listening to a new sound track while playing is so OP.... and we already get to change the little emblem of our bases and units, why not allow for our units to get like a custom emblem on it if you level up enough. Kinda like how blackops allowed for your own emblem on guns, why can't we put like a custom logo? It'll be sick.
No lie though, if they added retro sounds and even retro songs, i'd grind day-in-day-out for that stuff xD
The only issue with that is in Black Op, you see a lot of penises and breasts. I'm not looking for that to be added into SC2.
|
At first I was terrified you would say "let's start with 1-1". Seems cool, can't say I would care about it, but I don't represent everyone.
|
"Any texture changes on the units would be made to be reverted when you enabled "team colors". Enemies would appear as normal, red, uncustomized units."
Everyone can agree on this part, yes?
|
dont like the idea at all
Imagine how many better games their would be out right now if call of duty was never made. They have inadvertly changed and hurt many existing games and have made companeys try to replicate them in an attempt to make money from casuels.
|
On July 28 2011 15:45 HomicidaL wrote:
dont like the idea at all
Imagine how many better games their would be out right now if call of duty was never made. They have inadvertly changed and hurt many existing games and have made companeys try to replicate them in an attempt to make money from casuels.
Imagine how many good games wouldn't exist if the companies who produced them went out of business because they didn't make games that appealed to "casuals".
What the fuck is a casual in SC2? Someone who doesn't play 5000 ladder games a season? Someone who doesn't play 12+ hours a day? Someone who isn't a pro and signed to a team? Do you even know who you mean when you say casuals? Are we talking about people that need to do things like go to high school, college classes, work, and fulfill everyday social needs? Who is not casual? Just the pros, or the people who spend their lives in SC2.
The majority of players play "casually". E-Sports is not hurt by that. Nor would it be hurt by my suggested changes.
|
On July 28 2011 15:32 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:13 iLikeYourStylez wrote:
Sounds pretty good at retaining players. And if you ask me, this wouldn't break e-sports at all, as if listening to a new sound track while playing is so OP.... and we already get to change the little emblem of our bases and units, why not allow for our units to get like a custom emblem on it if you level up enough. Kinda like how blackops allowed for your own emblem on guns, why can't we put like a custom logo? It'll be sick.
No lie though, if they added retro sounds and even retro songs, i'd grind day-in-day-out for that stuff xD The only issue with that is in Black Op, you see a lot of penises and breasts. I'm not looking for that to be added into SC2.
People do that on blackops too? didn't they make it so that you could only pick from the objects they gave you? I mean i guess they could make it LOOK like it but does it really look that much like it? Like i remember they only let you use preset objects and you could like, rotate, scale, and all that good stuff but they didn't let you use your own COMPLETELY custom emblem did they? or maybe i just didn't play enough x.x all i know is mine was a skull but i used the katans and flipped them up upside down and made them go off screen so you coudln't see the handles and so it looked like the skull was crying... BLOOOOOOOD (reference to that scene in matchstick men... love that movie)
but yeah, I just posted in another thread about the player drop but this thread isn't about that so i won't like copy and paste it.
All i'm saying is that i agree that this sounds like a sick idea. I'd also try and put some korean voices into my units if it could :D Oh and definately must listen to Zerg Must Die (http://youtu.be/ZSGhzAaqYsc) even if i am a zerg player
Oh and i would definitely make drones spit spins and not "punch" things with their claws. Oh how sick would it be if you could modify dying animations? Like you unlock a new "acid death" on the marine where the suit melts away and then you see like a skeleton. that'd be so sick. well just rambling XD
|
I think setting up tournaments for lower leagues would at least increase incentive for casual players to play a bit more. Just grinding on playing sc2 just to level up will only encourage allins and cheeses which doesn't help improve them as a player. If I wanna grind then I would rather play those crappy MMORPG games or work like a dog in real life.
Also the novelty of the custom features would only last a short while and eventually leave sc2 for good.
|
Some people seem to really enjoy the idea of being trapped in a skinners box in every game they go into. Unfortunately, this mindset seems prolific.
Ideally, sc2 is fun intrinsically. If that's not the case, something is horribly horribly wrong.
However, the sad fact of the matter is, if blizzard could add random unnecessary leveling systems on a reasonable budget, they would.
To restate my point simply, this idea is just that, an idea, and unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, it will most likely not become a reality due to the nature of sc2 itself.
|
I don't think this is a good idea, OP. You play a videogame because it's fun, not because of some meaningless rewards.I think this video drives the point home better than I could:
(Plus it also features Julyzerg(: )
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 28 2011 15:52 iLikeYourStylez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:32 Chargelot wrote:On July 28 2011 15:13 iLikeYourStylez wrote:
Sounds pretty good at retaining players. And if you ask me, this wouldn't break e-sports at all, as if listening to a new sound track while playing is so OP.... and we already get to change the little emblem of our bases and units, why not allow for our units to get like a custom emblem on it if you level up enough. Kinda like how blackops allowed for your own emblem on guns, why can't we put like a custom logo? It'll be sick.
No lie though, if they added retro sounds and even retro songs, i'd grind day-in-day-out for that stuff xD The only issue with that is in Black Op, you see a lot of penises and breasts. I'm not looking for that to be added into SC2. People do that on blackops too? didn't they make it so that you could only pick from the objects they gave you? I mean i guess they could make it LOOK like it but does it really look that much like it? Like i remember they only let you use preset objects and you could like, rotate, scale, and all that good stuff but they didn't let you use your own COMPLETELY custom emblem did they? or maybe i just didn't play enough x.x all i know is mine was a skull but i used the katans and flipped them up upside down and made them go off screen so you coudln't see the handles and so it looked like the skull was crying... BLOOOOOOOD (reference to that scene in matchstick men... love that movie) but yeah, I just posted in another thread about the player drop but this thread isn't about that so i won't like copy and paste it. All i'm saying is that i agree that this sounds like a sick idea. I'd also try and put some korean voices into my units if it could :D Oh and definately must listen to Zerg Must Die (http://youtu.be/ZSGhzAaqYsc) even if i am a zerg player Oh and i would definitely make drones spit spins and not "punch" things with their claws. Oh how sick would it be if you could modify dying animations? Like you unlock a new "acid death" on the marine where the suit melts away and then you see like a skeleton. that'd be so sick. well just rambling XD
You need to select from preset objects, but if you layer them correctly it looks like it. And most of them are not poor imitations, it looks like any hand drawn version of these body parts.
|
|
|
On July 28 2011 15:53 insaneMicro wrote:I don't think this is a good idea, OP. You play a videogame because it's fun, not because of some meaningless rewards.I think this video drives the point home better than I could: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s
You conquer a nation for the land. Would it hurt if you also got all of the banks and riches that nation had?
I never once said "quick, replace all the fun with shiny stuff!"
I don't understand why people seem to think a game can't have everything. Either it's a game dedicated to be the best game ever and only 3 people play it, or it's a casual wonderland and no serious gamer plays it? Give me a fucking break.
On July 28 2011 15:55 Wyk wrote:
Don't. Just don't.
You can be warned for posts like that. You're not supposed to make short, meaningless responses. ^^ edit with a reason.
|
I like the idea to a degree. if you are to change the way until look though, it should only be for the more unicorn units, i.e. for a terrain player the Thor, seige. tank or battlecruiser, otherwise it could affect a players ability to quickly count until they recognise in an intense moment. for example, if marines looked more like ghosts, or even just less like marines a protons player will have difficulty discerning where the ghost is to feedback it.
Would love to customize the main menu though.
|
On July 28 2011 15:57 Chargelot wrote:
You conquer a nation for the land. Would it hurt if you also got all of the banks and riches that nation had?
I never once said "quick, replace all the fun with shiny stuff!"
I don't understand why people seem to think a game can't have everything. Either it's a game dedicated to be the best game ever and only 3 people play it, or it's a casual wonderland and no serious gamer plays it? Give me a fucking break.
I guess the difference between us is that you care about the "achievements" most games nowadays feature. It would not even have crossed my mind to compare them to banks and riches, never realised those could actually motivate people to play a game [or parts of it] they wouldn't enjoy (as much) otherwise.
That said, if you really want this, go ahead and petition Blizzard Can't think of a reason not to.
I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all.
|
On July 28 2011 16:07 Qibla wrote:
I like the idea to a degree. if you are to change the way until look though, it should only be for the more unicorn units, i.e. for a terrain player the Thor, seige. tank or battlecruiser, otherwise it could affect a players ability to quickly count until they recognise in an intense moment. for example, if marines looked more like ghosts, or even just less like marines a protons player will have difficulty discerning where the ghost is to feedback it.
Would love to customize the main menu though.
Yeah I'm thinking of switching it to BattleCruiser/Carrier/Broodlord. You wouldn't be able to change the actual size or shape of a unit, but rather change some small part if its superficial appearance.
|
On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:57 Chargelot wrote:
You conquer a nation for the land. Would it hurt if you also got all of the banks and riches that nation had?
I never once said "quick, replace all the fun with shiny stuff!"
I don't understand why people seem to think a game can't have everything. Either it's a game dedicated to be the best game ever and only 3 people play it, or it's a casual wonderland and no serious gamer plays it? Give me a fucking break.
I guess the difference between us is that you care about the "achievements" most games nowadays feature. It would not even have crossed my mind to compare them to banks and riches, never realised those could actually motivate people to play a game [or parts of it] they wouldn't enjoy (as much) otherwise. That said, if you really want this, go ahead and petition Blizzard Can't think of a reason not to. I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all.
If it was only about competitiveness, there would be no exciting casters, no ceremonies, no flashy stages, no lights, and no cool player booths. It had fluff. There was a lot more going on than just the competition. The viewership would have been much different if the tournaments consisted of 6 players sitting at a plain table, with computers on it, silently playing their matches.
|
I REALLY like this idea, or something similar to it. I know that I barely play anymore, and it's because I don't feel like I accomplish anything when I do. I don't have much time to really practice, so when I play with the intent to improve its just discouraging. Rewarding me for playing, but not necessarily improving, would DEFINITELY bring me back.
|
On July 28 2011 16:20 Yellowmelon wrote:
I REALLY like this idea, or something similar to it. I know that I barely play anymore, and it's because I don't feel like I accomplish anything when I do. I don't have much time to really practice, so when I play with the intent to improve its just discouraging. Rewarding me for playing, but not necessarily improving, would DEFINITELY bring me back.
Whether that was sarcastic or not, if you took a careful look at the XP system, it would take literally tens of thousands of losing games to earn the first few levels (up to level 6ish).
|
On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 15:57 Chargelot wrote:
You conquer a nation for the land. Would it hurt if you also got all of the banks and riches that nation had?
I never once said "quick, replace all the fun with shiny stuff!"
I don't understand why people seem to think a game can't have everything. Either it's a game dedicated to be the best game ever and only 3 people play it, or it's a casual wonderland and no serious gamer plays it? Give me a fucking break.
I guess the difference between us is that you care about the "achievements" most games nowadays feature. It would not even have crossed my mind to compare them to banks and riches, never realised those could actually motivate people to play a game [or parts of it] they wouldn't enjoy (as much) otherwise. That said, if you really want this, go ahead and petition Blizzard Can't think of a reason not to. I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all.
Agreed. I cannot imagine anyone playing Starcraft for hats.
|
I like your idea, OP -- I think there could be a lot of fun ideas to be implemented with a system like this. That being said, my primary concern is always the purity of the game as an arena for competition, so anything that changed the gameplay in any way would be taboo as far as I'm concerned. Certainly we know that lots of players enjoy games that allow them to unlock bonus content as a reward for play. Probably most TLers are interested in SC2 for other reasons, but a large player base is good for the sport, which benefits all of us.
I absolutely love the idea of being able to select my own background music, regardless of whether a leveling system were part of the deal. I play Protoss and off-race as Zerg, and the Terran bg music is by far the best 
|
The idea isn't bad but I agree with some of the other posts, brood war was played a ton ( and is still being played) because it is fun. I still don't have all that much fun with SC2 just yet partially because I do not find it having the ability to be as competitive at the higher levels, and I'm hoping the next expansion changes that.
|
On July 28 2011 16:15 Chargelot wrote:
If it was only about competitiveness, there would be no exciting casters, no ceremonies, no flashy stages, no lights, and no cool player booths. It had fluff. There was a lot more going on than just the competition. The viewership would have been much different if the tournaments consisted of 6 players sitting at a plain table, with computers on it, silently playing their matches.
Can't see how that relates to your proposed level system . The reason Broodwar built up such a large Korean audience has however a lot to do with it being a brilliant game as well as certain economic and social processes in South Korea during the early 00's.
Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, couldn't really make out where you wanted to go with that post ~
|
On July 28 2011 16:23 Perfi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:On July 28 2011 15:57 Chargelot wrote:
You conquer a nation for the land. Would it hurt if you also got all of the banks and riches that nation had?
I never once said "quick, replace all the fun with shiny stuff!"
I don't understand why people seem to think a game can't have everything. Either it's a game dedicated to be the best game ever and only 3 people play it, or it's a casual wonderland and no serious gamer plays it? Give me a fucking break.
I guess the difference between us is that you care about the "achievements" most games nowadays feature. It would not even have crossed my mind to compare them to banks and riches, never realised those could actually motivate people to play a game [or parts of it] they wouldn't enjoy (as much) otherwise. That said, if you really want this, go ahead and petition Blizzard Can't think of a reason not to. I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all. Agreed. I cannot imagine anyone playing Starcraft for hats.
Well, I think that's the part where you've misunderstood. People wont play for the hats. But giving hats to people who play certainly won't make them quit. May even give them one more thing to like about the game.
|
On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:
I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all.
It worked so well for BW, that when all the (foreign) pros switched to SC2, they were disgusted by the small size of the SC2 community and playerbase. The more people that play and keep interest, the more people end up watching content.
The competitive scene will thrive regardless of these features. Blizzard didn't design BW for cutthroat competition, but it ended up that way because people found it fun to play before becoming competitive. If something is competitive first, like SC2 seems to be, what incentive do players have to play if they can't play competitively?
|
ability to choose a color to use on ladder
....maybe have 3 chances to get a new color. like level 20, 30, and 40.
i really like this idea.
i can see Blizzard doing something like this in HotS
|
That is, if I work hard in World of Warcraft, I level, and gain access to many more quest, new gear, and more zones. Leveling from 1-85 provides hundreds of DAYS of play time worth of content
If anything like World of Warcraft happens in sc2 i will never play/watch the dam game again.
|
As long as it is not changing ingame stuff I'm okay with it because it's just another nonsense feature like the achievements.
However, this would take much time to be implemented and therefore I'd rather not have it.
Also, games are already way too full with senseless stuff.
|
On July 28 2011 16:31 EGfanBoi!DemuFtw wrote:Show nested quote + That is, if I work hard in World of Warcraft, I level, and gain access to many more quest, new gear, and more zones. Leveling from 1-85 provides hundreds of DAYS of play time worth of content If anything like World of Warcraft happens in sc2 i will never play/watch the dam game again.
D: again, people who read 2 sentences then comment.
I don't understand how you people manage to go unbanned.
On July 28 2011 16:25 insaneMicro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 16:15 Chargelot wrote:
If it was only about competitiveness, there would be no exciting casters, no ceremonies, no flashy stages, no lights, and no cool player booths. It had fluff. There was a lot more going on than just the competition. The viewership would have been much different if the tournaments consisted of 6 players sitting at a plain table, with computers on it, silently playing their matches. Can't see how that relates to your proposed level system . The reason Broodwar built up such a large Korean audience has however a lot to do with it being a brilliant game as well as certain economic and social processes in South Korea during the early 00's. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, couldn't really make out where you wanted to go with that post ~
None of the listed things had to do with competition. I suppose the in-game out-of-game difference is what may have made my point moot. But BW wasn't some game that 10,000,000 played. It sold a total of 11M copies, but how many people actively played it all the time? Compare that to the number of people who play other games, like say, World of Warcraft which tops 12,000,000 paying users per month.
Integrating features found in other types of games, without altering or removing any of the current features in SC2, or changing the way the game works at all, could only bring more players, which leads to more fans of SC2 E-Sports, which leads to more money being invested into it, and more chances that it will go mainstream.
Don't like the shinies? You wouldn't have to use them.
But don't out of hand deny something that could easily entertain a million "casuals". The money those casuals spend makes development of the game possible. But in this case, it doesn't change your playing experience AT ALL.
|
What happens when everyone is level 50?
Ladder dailies? 4v4 raids for extra ladder points?
If SC2 requires this kind of incentive for people to play, they aren't doing something right.
|
The incentive to play the game should be that the game is fun to play, not because you want to "level up".
I'd rather Blizzard spend their time improving the gameplay experience, rather than on something like this -- but I suppose if they did add something of this sort, it would be largely harmless.
But dear god Battle.net 2.0 is so awful, they have so many better things they could work on...
|
I actually love this idea ebven though i treat this game quite competitevly. Generally im not a huge fan of things that are "noob friendly" but this kind of level system will make it easier to create arbitrary goals and show newer players that they are making progress. When it comes to customizable unit looks in game i think either it would have to be something small or only show it to the player himself. My biggest issue here is that nothing should affect balance. For example if people were able to downvote another map that person would have a much easier time laddering than others. All in all tho, great idea.
|
Finland5967 Posts
Okay, I'm fine with anything as long as it doesn't screw up the game and isn't actually worth anything.
This probably doesn't affect masters or higher at all anyways.
|
Sounds good as long as those in game unit changes are subtle and not so drastic...
|
|
|
That's actually a really nice idea to keep the game fresh for everyone, not just casuals. The customizable menu alone would be really neat and fresh. Good idea!
|
The only reward i would want is a visible MMR rating that i could keep track of. It would be awesome see if im really improving or not, as the division rank is pretty much not. I go to bed at rank 30 and wake up at rank 41, what is that supposed to tell me about my skill?
If they showed MMR and had set numbers for when you get promoted wouldnt that make players motivated? "Only 5 more MMR points and i get into a new league".
|
For me, a mere casual player, this system described in de OP sounds cool!
|
I don't think the system described in the OP would work well because it hides content from the casual player. He will figure it is unfair that he paid for a full game and need to do additional work to get all the content.
On July 28 2011 17:01 qoolqop wrote:
If they showed MMR and had set numbers for when you get promoted wouldnt that make players motivated? "Only 5 more MMR points and i get into a new league". League promotion/demotion doesn't work this way.
The ladder is designed to climb ranks within your devision. To get into other leagues you don't only need to get better, you need to improve faster than the rest. You need to improve even more as bronze casual gamers are leaving the ladder, meaning the bronze ranks need to be filled with the next best players, resulting in a skill shift through all leagues.
|
I think is a pretty good idea that I'm surprised hasn't been implemented already. I think that most people who oppose this are quite odd since the gist of it is that either they don't care for it, they don't see who would care for it, or this game isn't about fun and shininess.
I see no real downside to it though, and I enjoy shiny things and customization. The same way I miss my Ubuntu GUI when I'm on Windows. Having more customization doesn't make something any weaker (if you were to look at it objectively, it would logically just have more "stuff"), and if you don't use any of these features, then what does it matter to you? You still theoretically get more for your buck, and I'm sure you didn't complain about that fancy box you got with the game, the free trials that came with it, the avatars that you unlock, and that whole campaign business that took up more space on your hard drive.
Different things appeal to different audiences, and this can only help retain players. I noticed some people mentioning LoL, and no matter how much you may like or dislike it- guess what: it's REALLY popular. So popular that there were conspiracy theories being conjured up when people saw higher numbers on the LoL streams than the SC2 streams at Dreamhack. And it features a lot of these little things that don't really matter to everyone, but sometimes give a little motivation to play some more and get something "cool."
|
I like it a bit, especially the music customization and the bonus veto (but only because blizzard is so shit at making maps). But this wouldn't be about me liking it, it would be about putting a carrot in front of the more casual players, which would be accomplished well I think.
The only problem is persistency. Casuals that have played games with progression like Borderlands or CoD are used to persistent progression. I mean, separating the leveling process by races makes sense, but separating by fighting bracket doesn't, and even if it did (it's true that team matches play very differently than 1v1) it wouldn't feel right to a casual who doesn't really understand how differently they play.
Also, it would be more work from Blizzard, when there are already 2 more important issues: replays being watchable with another player, and better fucking ladder maps.
|
This is some good stuff! It's better then those horrible decal awards...
|
No, because all these options should be available to everyone. Except for casuals having some weird farming addiction, there is no reason to have the options restricted by some pathetic levels. No unlocks affecting gameplay should exist.
|
Achievements accomplish the same thing this does: incentive to play more games for rewards. I don't think casual players will care either way when the end result is grinding hundreds of games.
|
If you want more customization that is fine, but a leveling system of any kind should really never exist in Starcraft. That isn't why people play it.
All these ideas are great. I shouldn't have to level to have them. Simple as that. If people are attracted to some weird leveling system, then maybe Starcraft just isn't the game for them to begin with....
|
Giving some rewards is good idea. Especially for less motivated players.
But these listed rewards are bad. Most of people don't listen to ingame music and there is no way it's fair to deny UI customisation until high level. There should be something different.
|
On July 28 2011 17:50 Noktix wrote:
If you want more customization that is fine, but a leveling system of any kind should really never exist in Starcraft. That isn't why people play it.
All these ideas are great. I shouldn't have to level to have them. Simple as that. If people are attracted to some weird leveling system, then maybe Starcraft just isn't the game for them to begin with....
Exactly my thoughts. Starcraft is starcraft, don't make it look like the new (terribad) cod games or so.
|
On July 28 2011 17:48 Tyrant0 wrote:
Achievements accomplish the same thing this does: incentive to play more games for rewards. I don't think casual players will care either way when the end result is grinding hundreds of games.
true but you'd be surprised how many people really do want to get the achievements and namely, the portraits. as pointless as it is, people want it.
|
true but you'd be surprised how many people really do want to get the achievements and namely, the portraits. as pointless as it is, people want it.
I never said acheivements were a bad idea, I have 4670. I'm saying they both accomplish the exact same thing. Expecting casual players to stay for a leveling system whom normally wouldn't be attracted to an achievement system when both do the same thing, sounds pointless.
|
While I think the OP has an interesting idea, I think what is really stopping people from getting into SC2 is not knowing how to improve or how to properly play the game.
What I think would be great for Blizzard to add would be good, indepth but basic tutorials on how to 1v1. For instance, Day9's daily on the Mental Checklist was a huge help to me. Tutorials on the mental checklist, the use of hotkeys, tabbing, basic macro and micro mechanics might be able to draw in the casual players with real and actual achievements. Basically having Day9's basic lessons in built into the SC2 client might be a huge help to players who don't actively search how to they can be better at SC2.
Surely anything's better than Blizzard's "tips" and "counters list" which is what it currently offers to low level casual players.
|
this is an RTS, this is not an MMORPG/FPS.
You want rewards? go train and get into the next league, thats your reward, or even just getting higher ranked inside your league, if you cant strive to get no'1 in plat and promoted to diamond, you shouldnt be playing this
IF you want that sort of levelling system, go play MMORPG/FPS games. this is a ridiculous idea, i dont want to be staring at retarded pink marines and santa queens, fuck that.
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.
Now THATS an idea! Adding easy access to tournament play with rewards would be awesome, im not sure what the rewards would be though considering it could break the ladder system implementing point bonuses, but things like achievements for tourney play and portraits could be added, this is the idea we need, not retarded pink marines and santa queens!
SC2 doesnt need the "casual" gamerbase from WoW or COD, in fact, that playerbase isnt "casual" its under 18 idiots who dont want to work for anything but want everything, flaming everyone in the process. It would DESTROY SC2's community.
|
The obvious problem with blizzard doing this is that we don't even have simple features with Battle.net like DnD and "Replay-with-Friends~!" However this is a pretty cool idea and I like it. They should allow BW music in SC2 that would be awesome!
|
IMO it needs to stop before GM, that should be for the top players only MMR wise, not the hardest working; with enough work you could end up there without necessarily deserving it
|
I'm actually very pleased with the game as it is, and the thread mentioned by the OP only made me happier. The people who left were "casuals", I use quotation marks because I'm referring to another context different from the literal meaning.
You know who casuals are: the ones who roll Spy/Sniper in TF2 when there are already 2 of them in your team. They aren't helpful, but because Valve made the game free there is this huge influx of people who dont bother learning about the more strategic aspects of the game and just want to get kills. Then he feels good about himself because "he won" because the rest of his team was playing their ass off bringing the payload to the checkpoint with 1 less "useful" player.
They're the ones who stand in the fire during a raid boss in WoW. They aren't helpful, but because Blizzard started streamlining epics suddenly "ANYONE CAN RAID NOW". People have to go out of their way to carry "that guy" and he gets to feel good about himself because "he killed a boss".
Casuals dont make games fun.
Catering to casuals in SC2 will NOT benefit eSports, they will benefit Blizzard stocks. Just because Blizzard will get more money out of casuals will not result into a better game. We've already seen this with WoW. You know what's going to happen? They're gonna use that money to sustain that casual player base and focus less on the game because now they HAVE to, otherwise that sudden increase in stocks that they gained from a larger player base is gonna disappear if they dont give their full attention to keeping it up.
Lastly, you think the majority of casuals are the ones who watch tournaments? Or the ones hold the fanclubs, make the cheerfuls, watch the streams? It's not. I'm sure there are a couple out there, but for the msot part it's people who actually enjoy this game for what it is that are holding it together. In BW, the game wasn't designed to be an eSport, nor was it made to be some sort of cash cow. It was just a game, the right kind of people who appreciated the game for what it is are what made it a huge success.
I'm really glad to see that drop of players from Season 1 to Season 2.
That was my rant. Gonna get some tea.
|
The counter arguments don't make sense to me logically though. Are you guys arguing against these ideas because you think they add nothing to (or detract from) the game, or because it would create an influx of people you don't want playing your game? Because as far as the whole carrying idea goes, I don't see how that applies in Starcraft 2. In 1v1's the only way you would play them is if you're bad enough to play them, and while I'm sure fewer people take team games seriously, I'm sure that those who win more (if you're in a higher league) are good enough at the game to be at that level.
So, if you never have to play with these "under 18 idiots," what's the big deal? The only effect they'll really have is creating more money, and we all benefit from that. B-Net forums will stay the same, most of them will probably never be competitive, and TL will keep banning idiotic threads. It literally does nothing to change your experience if you don't want it to. All it could possibly do is bring more attention to the game, and while people may be content with the game the "way that it is," I'm pretty sure half of TL was jumping with joy when SC2 took main stage at MLG and every time SC2 gets any significant coverage in forms of media.
|
On July 28 2011 18:30 Jojo131 wrote:
Casuals dont make games fun.
Catering to casuals in SC2 will NOT benefit eSports, they will benefit Blizzard stocks. Just because Blizzard will get more money out of casuals will not result into a better game. If it is done right, it will. More casuals = greater audience = more sponsors for the pro scene. Why is soccer so big in Europe and baseball so big in the USA? Because most guys played it once on a non-pro level.
On July 28 2011 18:30 Jojo131 wrote:
I'm really glad to see that drop of players from Season 1 to Season 2. I would like to have as many as possible casual noobs in SC2. Even if they don't build more than 13 workers per base, they still can have fun.
I did play C&C1, WC2, SC1, AOE1 and AOE2, RA2 and WC3 on a noob level for years. I had fun. Much fun. I would be pissed if a player who is better at me at those game would have wanted be out because I am a scrub.
|
On July 28 2011 18:43 ZarMulix wrote:
The counter arguments don't make sense to me logically though. Are you guys arguing against these ideas because you think they add nothing to (or detract from) the game, or because it would create an influx of people you don't want playing your game? Because as far as the whole carrying idea goes, I don't see how that applies in Starcraft 2. In 1v1's the only way you would play them is if you're bad enough to play them, and while I'm sure fewer people take team games seriously, I'm sure that those who win more (if you're in a higher league) are good enough at the game to be at that level.
So, if you never have to play with these "under 18 idiots," what's the big deal? The only effect they'll really have is creating more money, and we all benefit from that. B-Net forums will stay the same, most of them will probably never be competitive, and TL will keep banning idiotic threads. It literally does nothing to change your experience if you don't want it to. All it could possibly do is bring more attention to the game, and while people may be content with the game the "way that it is," I'm pretty sure half of TL was jumping with joy when SC2 took main stage at MLG and every time SC2 gets any significant coverage in forms of media.
You're right, this is generally a 1v1 game.
So where do these guys come out? These are the same guys on bnet forums whining about balance, pressuring blizzard to change this and that then you check their profile to found out they're just silver, hardly with the mechanics to execute a well timed banshee rush. They dont want to learn the game, they just want it easier by spoiling it for people like the ones on TL who open up threads to discuss collectively on how to deal with "this and that" rather then wait for nerfs that will likely never come.
|
No, like there isn't enough cheese going on already.
|
On July 28 2011 18:51 [F_]aths wrote:
If it is done right, it will. More casuals = greater audience = more sponsors for the pro scene. Why is soccer so big in Europe and baseball so big in the USA? Because most guys played it once on a non-pro level.
Like I said for broodwar: the right kind of people who appreciated the game for what it is are what made it a huge success
|
On July 28 2011 18:08 Futarchy wrote:
While I think the OP has an interesting idea, I think what is really stopping people from getting into SC2 is not knowing how to improve or how to properly play the game. I think it is more because of the anxiety when searching for a ladder game. If you are don't used to it, you will feel personally attacked when your base is under siege. As I experienced it, many beginners with little ladder experience stop laddering because they cannot stand the pressure.
|
On July 28 2011 18:51 Jojo131 wrote:
So where do these guys come out? These are the same guys on bnet forums whining about balance, pressuring blizzard to change this and that then you check their profile to found out they're just silver, hardly with the mechanics to execute a well timed banshee rush. They dont want to learn the game, they just want it easier by spoiling it for people like the ones on TL who open up threads to discuss collectively on how to deal with "this and that" rather then wait for nerfs that will likely never come. For me it's the same like discussions about soccer. Sometimes I cannot avoid it to be near some guys who discuss a game and they all seem to be experts because they know exactly what the team should have done!
It's no different in SC2. I cringe and feel pain in my stomach when I browse the Battle.net forums. So many whiners with so little knowledge.
The scrubs want to play the game their way, that is right. They want to lean back, play relaxed, but still have a large fight where they win. I think the key is to ensure that SC2 is very easy to learn but very hard to master. If it is done right, it can fit the needs of the noobs while it still is the premier esports title.
I want to have a family man playing SC2 ladder, as well as a 13 yo kid. I rather prefer needless balance discussions about the game instead of having no discussions because there are only a few players.
|
On July 28 2011 18:57 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 18:08 Futarchy wrote:
While I think the OP has an interesting idea, I think what is really stopping people from getting into SC2 is not knowing how to improve or how to properly play the game. I think it is more because of the anxiety when searching for a ladder game. If you are don't used to it, you will feel personally attacked when your base is under siege. As I experienced it, many beginners with little ladder experience stop laddering because they cannot stand the pressure.
I would have to agree on this point. You need to have a certain mindset going in, or you will never hit the find match button, because at this point in time, there is ZERO reward for losing a game that is not skill related. Yes you can watch a replay to figure out what you did wrong, but that's all.
On the other hand, if you knew that regardless of whether you won or lost, you'd be working towards a decal that is stamped onto every marine you made, and you were rewarded for trying to win(possibly score based, as that encourages macro styles which is the better way to learn), would you feel so bad about a loss? Blizzard already removed losses from battlenet for the casuals, this would be another step towards making every player want to keep hitting that find match button, and playing for fun, not for results.
As for the experience ladder, I don't think it's appropriate to punish bronze so harshly. At most have bronze recieve 80% of grandmasters. The masters/gm's usually play more and thus already are rewarded appropriately. Also there needs to be rewards for losing as well, or else there really is no point.
|
I don't mind this idea, but I would be happy with just more portraits and decals. Make them unlockable from something other than winning games as well.
|
On July 28 2011 16:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:
I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all. It worked so well for BW, that when all the (foreign) pros switched to SC2, they were disgusted by the small size of the SC2 community and playerbase. The more people that play and keep interest, the more people end up watching content. The competitive scene will thrive regardless of these features. Blizzard didn't design BW for cutthroat competition, but it ended up that way because people found it fun to play before becoming competitive. If something is competitive first, like SC2 seems to be, what incentive do players have to play if they can't play competitively?
What you're doing is crossing culture lines with the same standard. Koreans are unique in that anything they do they do hardcore and insane and it's 12+ hours a day.
That's how this happened and that's why everywhere else is struggling with it because putting that into a video game is or feels like a big commitment to us
|
The whole thing with rewards in WoW or games is that you gain something that's cool or let's you gain an edge. Starcraft 2 is a RTS and therefore rewards which give you an edge is not an option in my opinion as it needs to come down to skill the most instead of promoting getting better stuff before the game.
|
On July 28 2011 19:47 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 16:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:
I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all. It worked so well for BW, that when all the (foreign) pros switched to SC2, they were disgusted by the small size of the SC2 community and playerbase. The more people that play and keep interest, the more people end up watching content. The competitive scene will thrive regardless of these features. Blizzard didn't design BW for cutthroat competition, but it ended up that way because people found it fun to play before becoming competitive. If something is competitive first, like SC2 seems to be, what incentive do players have to play if they can't play competitively? What you're doing is crossing culture lines with the same standard. Koreans are unique in that anything they do they do hardcore and insane and it's 12+ hours a day. That's how this happened and that's why everywhere else is struggling with it because putting that into a video game is or feels like a big commitment to us
You would think that when you get paid for it, it's okay....
People have harder jobs. Really, hard to imagine, but it's true.
|
I think it's an interesting idea but I don't think it's that necessary with the achievements/portraits. If it's something that can bring more people into the game though, I'm all for it!
I also don't think it's a good idea to have bonus be from scorescreen, because they don't really represent the game too much ><
|
I think it's a good idea, simply because I believe it might keep casual players entertained for longer. Obviously that means bigger SC2 audience, bigger game, etc.
|
Some off the things listed would be very cool.
Would be cool if we could get to customize the decals for our units. The things we have now with new decals for 500-750-1000 wins is not enough by far.
Would also be cool if teams such as TL or IM and the likes could get their own team-decals.
|
|
|
No no. Sc2 doesnt need some modern warfare leveling syste. Customized zerglings would be horrible
|
On July 28 2011 19:52 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 19:47 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 28 2011 16:27 aksfjh wrote:On July 28 2011 16:08 insaneMicro wrote:
I just think Starcraft should draw it's playerbase from it's competitiveness, nothing else. Worked for BW, after all. It worked so well for BW, that when all the (foreign) pros switched to SC2, they were disgusted by the small size of the SC2 community and playerbase. The more people that play and keep interest, the more people end up watching content. The competitive scene will thrive regardless of these features. Blizzard didn't design BW for cutthroat competition, but it ended up that way because people found it fun to play before becoming competitive. If something is competitive first, like SC2 seems to be, what incentive do players have to play if they can't play competitively? What you're doing is crossing culture lines with the same standard. Koreans are unique in that anything they do they do hardcore and insane and it's 12+ hours a day. That's how this happened and that's why everywhere else is struggling with it because putting that into a video game is or feels like a big commitment to us You would think that when you get paid for it, it's okay.... People have harder jobs. Really, hard to imagine, but it's true.
You're stupid. Like really stupid.
This has nothing to do with jobs. I'm talking about average players who don't make money. Keep trying your random try-hard condescension. If you do it enough times, you'll coincide with the truth eventually.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Think this is a great idea
|
why does every game need to be like CoD? I mean seriously....
|
On July 28 2011 20:16 Anima4 wrote:
why does every game need to be like CoD? I mean seriously....
The suggestion isn't for a CoD type system. You get the full ladder competitive experience out of the box. You're not unlocking game modes, units, or upgrades. It's more akin to making achievement points spendable on superficial perks.
|
All these "rewards" should already be in the game. Introducing "XP" to make players earn basic program functionality is terrible idea.
|
Sounds like a good idea, too bad Blizz never listens
|
Independent racing alone is good enough for me. :D
|
Well, seeing as it appeals to a very casual base, I can see Blizzard possibly doing something like this.
|
|
|
Please no MMO in my SC2, thank you!
|
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.
Sadly this.
I played/watched BW for over four years and never got bored of it, got bored of SC2 at the start of season two and I can for sure say that a level system would not have kept me playing.
I am rather certain that SC2 won't be around in the long run, the number of people actively laddering is dropping rapidly and within a year I think viewers and community members will decrease as a result. SC2 will probably get a boost for ever expansion and then slowly die out as the last Protoss expansion is out. The game needs a revolution, not a level system.
|
Terrible idea. I don't wanna game that appeals to stupid twats who only play games for rewards. SC2 is a competitive game, not a game for rewards. The reason why people have stopped playing is because they are casuals, they've beaten the single player and moved on.
|
Level 50 on all 3 races : Lan enabled?
|
This is an amasing idea, that would be great and bring some nice memories from the warcraft3TFT dayz along with more reason to grind the ladder.
Sadly i doubt blizzard will ever implement that, customizing our menus and stuff would be so neat ^^
|
do not want.
every game is trying to become more LoL friendly though. We'll see if blizz decides to add custom skins for every fricken unit....... I hope no
|
I think one of the reasons why I like playing RTS's is that it doesn't distract you with gimmicky accessories like (MMO's) maplestory.
Personally I think it'll just encourage more elitism when you have older players playing younger players with the same skill level, but if it encourages more people to play I guess I wouldn't be TOO sour about it.
Cosmetic only. Extra map veto is pretty dumb; if people play enough to care about maps then mission already fucking accomplished, no need to give players an advantage over others.
|
I cant see the harm apart from maybe blizzard spending to much time on it but i dont think they would anyway, if it keeps people playing why not.
|
I only want to play against people that play b/c they enjoy the game and not for virtual candy.
I also only want to play against people who are filtered out by skill, and not by their willingness to ration all their time to a game. Leave that to WoW please.
Leave this to the CoD and WoW casuals. Starcraft is a hardcore game, and always should be.
|
Really love this idea
|
While the idea looks like fun, I would have to point out that some of the rewards, if Blizzard was OK allowing them, I would really really like to be able to do without grinding tons of EXP. Specifically, the custom menus and soundtracks. Other ones, like the extra veto, would make more sense to me fitting in an EXP system.
|
Anything to get people to play more, if only team games.
|
I actually like the idea, though you shouldn't be able to customize ingame units to avoid any sort of confusion.
|
Wow this idea is f*cking amazing. Sounds 10X better than the blizzard ladder already and its pretty amateurish. Good job, but sadly will never be implemented
|
Why spend so much time trying to fix sc2? Perhaps just try playing the game since its not broken.
|
Actually, this would probably put me off laddering altogether. I played a fair bit in Season 1 and reached rank 1 diamond. I was on the verge of masters, but life got too busy and I had to take a break. Season 2, I was steady high diamond, but no longer had the time to try to climb the ladder. I saw little point in trying to get from rank 30 to 20, so when I got the time to play I tended to just play random team games for fun. In season 3 I intend to complete placements, but whether I'll bother trying for a high ladder rank I don't know. But if you put another barrier in front of me (e.g., everyone of the same skill level now has more "experience points" because they can afford to slack off and play for hours every day), then I would probably just forget about serious laddering altogether.
|
A game is only as strong as the size of its casual playerbase.
If other successful games are any indication, these types of systems really help encourage casual players to stick with the game. The idea shouldn't be too hard to implement. I don't see why Blizzard shouldn't give it a shot.
|
On July 29 2011 02:02 -Switch- wrote:
Why spend so much time trying to fix sc2? Perhaps just try playing the game since its not broken.
it's more like improving, not fixing
and it's a pretty good idea imo
|
Cool idea. I do like the idea of rewards besides Icons.
|
Can't they just give us the fun stuff mentioned in the OP without all the leveling up bullshit? 
|
|
|
I feel like if Blizzard added the option to customize more stuff, they would give it to everyone for free. Hell, we paid 60 bucks, and will be paying again for HotS...
Achieves, portraits and decals are pretty much the rewards, and I think I'm okay with that.
|
I'm starting to think that maybe the OP plans to start his own private server with these features implemented. Or he is planning to do a big write-up and send it to blizzard as advice.
|
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.
|
I feel like many players do need further incentives to play more sc2 and a better reward system might help keep those players. However, basically all of your suggestions are not acceptable (not meant to be mean, sry). A further veto for mass grinding is a no-go as it harms the competitive spirit of the game. Different looking ingame units can be distracting, so I don't like those either (maybe if only you and not your opponent could see your different unit skins, this could work).
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.
|
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.
|
It's a nice idea, but blizzard won't approve.
|
Clan support would be nice
|
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.
|
I really like this idea, but I dont know if I agree with the extra veto, Imo this idea should stay away from any sort of ingame changing, even if its just an extra veto.
I do really really think this would add more incentive to ladder
|
People dont play 1v1 because its not an easy game to play. You dont just run around mindlessly hitting a bunch of buttons or clicking things. You have to out think your opponent. This is why more kids play checkers than chess. Adding little bells and whistles will not solve this problem EVER!!
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.
|
On July 29 2011 05:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Add clan stuff and your good with me
|
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
|
holy crap can you imagine if you can customize something like the zealot charge animation, say like make it a blue flame that comes out instead?
i would upgrade charge every game. zerg going mutas? better get my blueflame charge.
|
The rewards should have no impact on the quality of the ladder system. Like vetos would give the person with more vetos a better ladder score then one with less because of fewer "unfavorable" maps. The rewards should be purely one-sided and cosmetic. Like you can have all the rewards you want, but I don't see them in game and get distracted and what not. I prefer out of game stuff with no impact on the competitive play, like portraits, achievements, alterations to the menu system or perhaps access to exclusive chat channels with other highly experienced players.
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.
|
I think you should be awarded the "same exp regardless of league". The idea of the entire system is to catter to the casual player, and they tend to be in lower legues than hardcores. Thus, you can't "punish" them for "not having enough time to play" by giving better players more exp.
|
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.
|
On July 29 2011 05:56 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2011 05:28 aksfjh wrote: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. 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.
|
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
|
On July 29 2011 05:22 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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 .
|
level 48 would be completely worth it...if it was still season 2
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
|
I would play more if they showed your MMR...
|
It sounds like an interesting idea that deserves exploration because, hey, rewards are cool. However, I'm not convinced that a better reward system is what is needed to retain players. I think that we should look more closely at the SC2 community to improve retention.
I propose the idea that one of the main reasons the number of players has dropped is that new players don't feel a connection to the SC2 community. I work at a public university where we have no trouble attracting new students, but struggle to retain them past the first year. What seems to be making the biggest difference in retention rates is getting the new students involved in clubs and organizations on campus, where they can make a connection with a lot of people and feel like they are an important member of the community. Students who don't make those connections feel separate, unwelcome, and often scared.
I give major props to our community for having some of the friendliest people in it, but it is still very intimidating for a player who is new to SC2, and RTS in general, to participate in forums, make friends, ask questions, or even ladder often. I never played any RTS until Wings of Liberty came out and this is my first time posting on any SC2 forum. I know how difficult it is to push your way into this community and struggle to feel welcome and useful. It feels like being at a big party where everyone knows each other, except you don't know anyone there. Everyone else is having a blast while you either try to force your way into the conversation and feel awkward or sit in a corner waiting for someone to talk to you. If new players don't feel a connection with the community quickly they will likely not want to play much and eventually will give up on SC2 entirely.
I think one way to fix the retention issue is to have more communities specifically for newbies and lower league players. Current communities, like this one, don't need to change, as long as they continue to be kind and patient with newbies, but the SC2 community in general needs to have more opportunities for newbies to get involved. Day[9] does a great job with Newbie Tuesdays, but newbies deserve more than just one day per week. We need sites dedicated to casting lower league replays, lower level analysis, giving tips on mechanics and play styles for newbies, and creating dialogue among the newbie community. Get them involved! There are some sites like that already, but you have to really search for them and newbies aren't likely to work that hard to find something that they don't even know is available.
Will they really care about game rewards that much if they are involved and have an emotional investment in the gaming community?
|
On July 29 2011 06:33 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2011 05:22 Najda wrote: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. 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.
While I admit that the "carrot on a stick" is a huge part of WoW, leveling itself does not take long. Even in vanilla, it wasn't a huge timesink, and the majority of players kept playing because of endgame (and continually added content). Nowadays, it is easy to hit 85 in 2 days (IRL, not /played) with RAF abuse. Even casually, max level doesn't take more than a couple weeks. It isn't what keeps people playing. Not that what ACTUALLY keeps people playing is THAT much different, but leveling isn't really the reason... at all.
|
On July 29 2011 07:35 Dasairi wrote:
It sounds like an interesting idea that deserves exploration because, hey, rewards are cool. However, I'm not convinced that a better reward system is what is needed to retain players. I think that we should look more closely at the SC2 community to improve retention.
I propose the idea that one of the main reasons the number of players has dropped is that new players don't feel a connection to the SC2 community. I work at a public university where we have no trouble attracting new students, but struggle to retain them past the first year. What seems to be making the biggest difference in retention rates is getting the new students involved in clubs and organizations on campus, where they can make a connection with a lot of people and feel like they are an important member of the community. Students who don't make those connections feel separate, unwelcome, and often scared.
I give major props to our community for having some of the friendliest people in it, but it is still very intimidating for a player who is new to SC2, and RTS in general, to participate in forums, make friends, ask questions, or even ladder often. I never played any RTS until Wings of Liberty came out and this is my first time posting on any SC2 forum. I know how difficult it is to push your way into this community and struggle to feel welcome and useful. It feels like being at a big party where everyone knows each other, except you don't know anyone there. Everyone else is having a blast while you either try to force your way into the conversation and feel awkward or sit in a corner waiting for someone to talk to you. If new players don't feel a connection with the community quickly they will likely not want to play much and eventually will give up on SC2 entirely.
I think one way to fix the retention issue is to have more communities specifically for newbies and lower league players. Current communities, like this one, don't need to change, as long as they continue to be kind and patient with newbies, but the SC2 community in general needs to have more opportunities for newbies to get involved. Day[9] does a great job with Newbie Tuesdays, but newbies deserve more than just one day per week. We need sites dedicated to casting lower league replays, lower level analysis, giving tips on mechanics and play styles for newbies, and creating dialogue among the newbie community. Get them involved! There are some sites like that already, but you have to really search for them and newbies aren't likely to work that hard to find something that they don't even know is available.
Will they really care about game rewards that much if they are involved and have an emotional investment in the gaming community?
That is a very good point. For a majority of the newbies out there, there's not a lot of content designed to help you out. Sure, you can post asking "what do I need to do to get better?" but you get a bunch of vague and scripted responses ("Work on your macro!" "Don't cheese!" "Learn from your losses!").
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that there is a valid reason why there isn't much content targeted towards low level players. Many times, when a discussion is had or help is administered, the recipient tunes out before anything is actually done. It makes a big difference when you're trying to help somebody and they stick with the plan long enough to see how the more targeted advice works.
On the direct topic, however, I think a little more complex features could go a long way to bringing newer players to communities. I, myself, found communities like TL (and others) looking for help on topics that I needed clarification on. Stuff like FAQs and guides that are hosted on many websites bring in these players that normally don't go looking for groups. This is what a leveling system could do, give people a reason to look up ways (and thus communities) to get XP faster. Maybe they learn that they could get their Carrier that launches fighter jets faster if they stick to a strat and get into gold league instead of trying to grind it out in bronze with 1 base mass carriers.
In this way, we create a steady demand of people who want cheap rewards from XP at various skill levels. It creates a branch of the community that wants to achieve something at their own skill level instead of always being concerned with promotion, which creates a steady demand for content at that level. Can you imagine if every Zerg started hatch first expanding into roach push because it was the easiest build to get the most points out of? On one hand, that's annoying to deal with, but on the other, you're motivating tons of people to stick to a build in order to get that coveted XP, and all because either the community said it was the "right" build or a popular guide/FAQ did.
|
I think a more effective stategy would be to implement weekly challenges in the same way that Halo:Reach does. The rewards dont have to be something that change the gameplay, it can just change the appearence of stuff, and only on your side of viewing at that. I have friends literally addicted to completing these challenges. It keeps people interested, it keeps them playing, and shit it might even make people consider trying something new with their own game play!
People might complain that its catering to a "lower class of gamer" but that opinion is pretty petty and short sighted given the competative scene's reliance on a healthy player base (see quake for evidence).
|
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.
This is a really awesome idea. +1
|
at first i was like wtf this is dumb this isnt RS
but after reading it i think its a great idea for the casual players or people who are really shitty at the game but just need some more motivation for them to continue on playing
|
This feels to much, SC2 doesn't need this stuff. Sorry!
|
I think that this is a great idea!
I love the idea of customizable units. Another think that might be good to add would be as you level up, you can unlock a secondary design (or "skin") for a given unit. I'm sure blizzard has alternate concept art that did not make it into the final product for most units and maybe a person would prefer one over the other. This might spruce up mirror matchups because not all units would look exactly the same. This is provided you can still tell that a marine is a marine.
|
I find this really interesting, i bet Blizzard would've made it awesome!
|
I guess I don't really see what advantages this system would have over the achievement system.
- With the achievement system, you're given rewards (new portraits) as your number of wins increases.
- With the leveling system, you'd be given rewards as your XP increases, which would mostly just come down to the same thing (winning games).
If your problem with the achievement system is that the rewards aren't frequent enough or that new portraits aren't good enough of rewards, Blizzard could fix that by adding in more achievements with different kinds of rewards (although I object to anything that could have an effect on gameplay, like extra map vetoes). For example, instead of being achievement rewards at 50/100/250/500/750/1000 wins (or whatever it is), there could be achievement rewards every 50 wins up to 1000, or something like that. A whole other "leveling" system seems completely unnecessary and a waste of development time.
|
On July 28 2011 13:44 Qzy wrote:
Custom units can screw up e-sports. We need constants in order to evolve the sport. One set of units, one set of rules.
But yes I agree that you need something to transition from season 1 to season 2... "XP" or whatever. Like a rank, ie. the same as in bad company 2, but meaning nothing.
I think he means custom skins. Like slightly different models, similar to what Blizzard did with the Collector's Edition Thor. It's just a graphical change that only the player who has it can see.
|
as long as something like this only changes the aesthetics of the game its fine, but when strategy games edge into unlocking more powerful units by playing, it ruins the game, and ruined games are dead games.
|
On July 29 2011 09:50 reverb wrote:Show nested quote +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. This is a really awesome idea. +1
Well, I have no idea why they don't have this implemented already. WarCraft 3 had this if I recall.
|
I was in speech this year and some kid did a speech on video games. What was interesting was that during a part of his speech he talked about the whole achievement system, and how it relates to the real world. It turns out that companies are putting "achievements" into there business. Now I don't quite remeber how it worked but supposedly it helped raise the rate at which people worked. So adding this in could actually be a good idea.
It may be a good idea, but that doesn't mean that Blizzard will accept it any time soon, if at all. So us, the players, would really need to work hard to get this to blizzard if you/we see this as a good thing.
|
On July 29 2011 10:23 Ryzu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 13:44 Qzy wrote:
Custom units can screw up e-sports. We need constants in order to evolve the sport. One set of units, one set of rules.
But yes I agree that you need something to transition from season 1 to season 2... "XP" or whatever. Like a rank, ie. the same as in bad company 2, but meaning nothing. I think he means custom skins. Like slightly different models, similar to what Blizzard did with the Collector's Edition Thor. It's just a graphical change that only the player who has it can see.
the other person would be able to see it as well I think. I want my hydralisks to spit acidy things like in Brood War >:[
|
On July 29 2011 10:17 Gorvin wrote:
I guess I don't really see what advantages this system would have over the achievement system.
- With the achievement system, you're given rewards (new portraits) as your number of wins increases.
- With the leveling system, you'd be given rewards as your XP increases, which would mostly just come down to the same thing (winning games).
If your problem with the achievement system is that the rewards aren't frequent enough or that new portraits aren't good enough of rewards, Blizzard could fix that by adding in more achievements with different kinds of rewards (although I object to anything that could have an effect on gameplay, like extra map vetoes). For example, instead of being achievement rewards at 50/100/250/500/750/1000 wins (or whatever it is), there could be achievement rewards every 50 wins up to 1000, or something like that. A whole other "leveling" system seems completely unnecessary and a waste of development time.
The problem with the achievement system is that it is very rigid in implementation. You can only give out achievements once, and any other way cheapens others. Eventually, you run out of sensible ones and all that is left are ridiculous achievements that take workarounds to obtain.
XP is different. You can constantly gain XP without doing anything special beyond investing time. That's something that appeals to everybody on some level (getting rewards for effort instead of results).
|
Also another "reward" should be sit'n'go tournaments. 50 people signs up, 1 winner takes the reward of getting "mr. awesome" in front of his name.
Any aren't small tournies in the game already?
|
On July 29 2011 11:20 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2011 10:17 Gorvin wrote:
I guess I don't really see what advantages this system would have over the achievement system.
- With the achievement system, you're given rewards (new portraits) as your number of wins increases.
- With the leveling system, you'd be given rewards as your XP increases, which would mostly just come down to the same thing (winning games).
If your problem with the achievement system is that the rewards aren't frequent enough or that new portraits aren't good enough of rewards, Blizzard could fix that by adding in more achievements with different kinds of rewards (although I object to anything that could have an effect on gameplay, like extra map vetoes). For example, instead of being achievement rewards at 50/100/250/500/750/1000 wins (or whatever it is), there could be achievement rewards every 50 wins up to 1000, or something like that. A whole other "leveling" system seems completely unnecessary and a waste of development time.
The problem with the achievement system is that it is very rigid in implementation. You can only give out achievements once, and any other way cheapens others. Eventually, you run out of sensible ones and all that is left are ridiculous achievements that take workarounds to obtain. XP is different. You can constantly gain XP without doing anything special beyond investing time. That's something that appeals to everybody on some level (getting rewards for effort instead of results).
I don't see how it is (meaningfully) different than the plethora of "win X number of games" achievements, other than the frequency of the rewards. Yeah, the leveling system could be designed so that you'd gain XP even when you lose games, but the match making system is designed so that you should be winning games 50% of the time, so you should be steadily making progress toward the next "win X games" achievement regardless.
|
I would LOVE more ways to aesthetically customize my units/structures and such in-game, it really can't do any bad for the game in general. Obviously, though, none of these things would alter the stats of any units or anything that actually makes you stronger.
|
I think that this is a great idea as long as nothing that affects ingame gameplay is changed. I love playing sc2 all the time (no life :D) but after a hard loss sometimes I just don't want to play for a while cause I don't want a hard loss again. Something like this would keep me playing, keep me playing longer periods at a time
|
I like it. It adds a bit more to the game I especially like the customization option. It's too bad that Starcraft doesn't have much freedom and such behind it. It's a very straightforward game, no real bells or whistles. It amazes me that the people who gave us WoW (in my opinion the best looking and most creative game out there.) couldn't add any more depth into this for casual players. Don't get me wrong I love SC2 the way it is but things like this would be fun for when I'm not playing intently to win or make my way up to masters.
|
i like it as far as cosmetic changes to interface or game sounds. obviously the game doesnt need it but its the type of thing blizzard would do and far better than sc2s achievement system.
again, i dont want visual in game changes, but 50 lvls worth of changing game sounds or menu backgrounds sound good.
|
I think is stupid, SC:BW didn't need those fancy things to be one of the best game ever, and surely SCII doesn't either, if people don't want to play it, to hell with them!
SCII don't need noobs that only play a game for the customizations, or the level up, and I say it although that I'm a noob on Platinum League, my only reward is to have fun and feel good when I beat players than in the past I couldn't
|
On July 28 2011 13:44 shtdisturbance wrote:
I play to win, not to get something. Reason why I hate COD and I like halo 2-3.
Me too. Having "stuff" to play for annoys me, because if you don't dedicate shitloads of time to it you feel like you haven't accomplished anything really. I just want to play and win; I don't need anything else.
|
On July 29 2011 12:54 DibujEx wrote:
I think is stupid, SC:BW didn't need those fancy things to be one of the best game ever, and surely SCII doesn't either, if people don't want to play it, to hell with them!
SCII don't need noobs that only play a game for the customizations, or the level up, and I say it although that I'm a noob on Platinum League, my only reward is to have fun and feel good when I beat players than in the past I couldn't
I share similar feelings about players who don't really play the game. However I think it is important to look at what features like this can offer. Even though it will probably draw in more people who will whine and make the community less enjoyable for you and I, we have to realize that having a larger player base is good for eSports. The larger the crowds/player base/fan base the more sponsors there will be which will benefit eSports overall. If you don't care about eSports then I would understand your position, but if you do care about eSports I would suggest that you rethink your position on features such as this.
|
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.
Why such blatant hostility? If you can't be respectful, keep it in the Brood War forums.
Anyway, news flash: 99.5% of people outside Korea who played brood war don't anymore. We're trying to do better than that with Starcraft 2.
|
On July 29 2011 13:10 lolsixtynine wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why such blatant hostility? If you can't be respectful, keep it in the Brood War forums. Anyway, news flash: 99.5% of people outside Korea who played brood war don't anymore. We're trying to do better than that with Starcraft 2.
The reason for that is because BW has been out for such a long time that people naturally left it as an old game. SC2 is still new with fancy graphics so of course a ton of people still play it.
I like the idea of these little rewards, but I too feel like it shouldn't NEED them. Broodwar didn't need them because it was both deeply competitive and fun. So I agree that if people stop playing SC2, it will be because it wasn't fun enough for them, and not because there weren't enough rewards. If little rewards are the only things that keep people on, then something is wrong at the core of the game. SC2 is doing fine though.
|
I do not support this at all, generally not a fan of leveling..
(kinda odd I've played WoW for like 2-3 years then, huh?)
|
i think the general idea is good to keep casual players going, so long as the advantages weren't effective in that a level 1 couldnt beat a level 50 because of perks or whatever you'd call them
|
On July 28 2011 13:37 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 13:33 tyCe wrote:
First thought: ewwww
Second thought: i guess SC2 does need this to keep its playerbase -__- It's true though. If you work hard at SC2, and you put days of work into it, all you really get is a more shiny league symbol. Even if its considered a major accomplishment, it's not very rewarding. If I spend that time in a different game, it feels like I've accomplished a lot more because of such rewards.
I disagree, in traditional games you get rewarded very easy. Call of duty hands things out for free basically, you always are getting xp in games even if you're awful you can reach max level. Same with WoW, every rpg etc.
Starcraft appeals to different people than the more traditional gamer. It's one of the very rare now hardcore games that only rewards you in self satisfaction. Winning a game feels amazing, losing a game feels really tough and finally getting to masters in 1v1 is an amazing feeling.
Having a level system would be really goofy, some people would measure how good they were by their level for sure and that would hurt the current system where you're only measured against yourself and your own development.
|
On July 29 2011 13:10 lolsixtynine wrote:Show nested quote +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. Why such blatant hostility? If you can't be respectful, keep it in the Brood War forums. Anyway, news flash: 99.5% of people outside Korea who played brood war don't anymore. We're trying to do better than that with Starcraft 2.
I think blabber was more pointing out that a game can last without rewards, I know many many people who played a few rounds of BW then never touched it again, because they weren't the RTS type. These people did the exact same thing with sc2, they bought it, or got a trial or whatever then realized that they just didn't like RTS games, or at least not one this fast, demanding or punishing. I stand by what I said earlier in the thread, sc2 doesn't need a skinner box system to live, because anyone who doesn't play it now just isn't the type for it and that is fine.
|
Leveling system could work.
@The people who said BW didn't need it. During BW peak there used to be like 60k logged onto bnet. During iccup's peak there were like 5k logged onto the server.
Basically BW had a pretty small community, where only the hardcore played. SC2 needs a bigger player base including all the casuals.
|
Why not implement an in-game shop where you can buy extra unit skins and wallpapers with money you earn by winning ladder games? How about using micro-transactions to buy a bonus exp pass?
No, OP. This is a horrible idea for a hardcore game like Starcraft.
|
I don't like it.
Starcraft 2 is simply a really hard game to do well in. Frankly i think that no matter if you're getting rewards for it, humiliating losses are still humiliating. You need a certain drive to be able to keep playing competitively. I know i have three friends who used to be obsessed and play 1v1 all the time and such, but now 1 of them doesn't play anymore, 1 only plays team games with me or custom games, and one is afraid to ladder because there's so much pressure. I still play, but I'm the only one who managed to make it up to a semi decent rank (theyre all bronze silver, I'm diamond).
Frankly I think that normal sc2 is too hardcore of a game for casual players that are motivated by rewards like this. HOWEVER, I do think that it might help some people get into the game, but unless they developed a drive to do well, they wouldn't stay in the long term.
On a side note custom games are awesome, amazingly fun, and new ones seem to come out every day. I highly encourage people to get sc2 just to play them as they're so many games inside a whole
I know I played wc3 only for the customs
I think these are a bigger draw to more casual gamers than any leveling masking a hard game behind them would.
|
I've got to say, I like this idea. While it is sad that it comes down to this for some players, thats the idea that a lot of people have with games. I've been trying to show my younger brother how fun it can be to play simply for the game itself.
Something like this would help give you that sense of accomplishment. The portraits are nice but are few and far between.
I would also think that this could help the map situation. After watching that quick interview with Browder and CatZ, my understanding is that casual gamers want less from a map because they are at lower levels of play. Blizzard doesn't want completely different map pools for different leagues. However, if I move from Bronze to Silver or Platinum to Diamond, they can learn 1 or 2 new maps added in to their pool.
I don't mean to lessen the game for bronze players but at that level I look at my brother who plays all maps the same anyway. Why not have Bronze use like 3 maps and as you rank up or play more matches you unlock more of the map pool. That way newer players can focus on their play rather than trying to learn to build workers and use hotkeys, etc all while playing on 8 totally different maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AbvAw.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5RemG.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rfsve.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oznsm.png)
