Do We Want the Game Harder? - Page 22

ampson

United States2355 Posts

January 24 2012 02:02 GMT

#421

On January 24 2012 10:58 Gak2 wrote:
Welp, the people have spoken. Just waiting on you Blizzard.

The internet theorycrafters and BW nostalgics have said they want it hardened. I guarantee you that if you asked any bronze-diamond leaguer (98% of the player base) if they wanted to have to tell every worker made to mine the answer would be a resounding no.

architecture

United States643 Posts

January 24 2012 02:02 GMT

#422

People need to stop spewing stuff about scouting.

Scouting is only one component. Many game decisions are necessarily made before it is possible to react to what the opponent is doing.

A1------A2-------A3
-----B1------B2--------

For instance, A must make decision A1 before B makes B1. Similarly, B1 needs to be made before A2, without knowing the result of A2.

The point is that you will always be making many reads AFTER the fact. There is nothing wrong with that if players can adapt and not die. Unfortunately, many of these are fatal in SC2, either in the short term or long term. The correct way to solve this is not to give more scouting, because scouting doesn't give you a crystal ball into the future. The correct way is to make it so that decisions aren't as fatal (caused by ridiculous macro mechanics).

Edit: oops repost.

R0YAL

United States1768 Posts

January 24 2012 02:07 GMT

#423

It doesn't necessarily have to be harder to execute in order to raise the skill ceiling. If you just add means of choice then it will naturally increase the skill ceiling. The more choice, and the more instances there is to screw up, the better. One thing that I don't agree with that is being introduced in HotS is that there is hydra speed at Hive tech, while there is hydra range at Lair. This reduces choice because there's only one upgrade to choose from at Lair and an additional one at Hive. In bw hydra range and speed were at the same tech, therefore there was a choice, and you can cater builds/timing pushes based around each choice that is given to you.

JDub

United States976 Posts

January 24 2012 02:08 GMT

#424

On January 24 2012 10:49 TheTurk wrote:
It doesn't have to be unplayable.
Just let there exist a skill cap that isn't easily conquered.

I just don't understand this sentiment at all. Show me a SINGLE game where anyone has played anywhere close to perfectly, please. Even the best of the best in GSL are still playing far below the theoretical skill cap, even as they are rapidly improving month to month. Just because BW made it extremely difficult just to macro at a mediocre level and move your army around does not mean that SC2 is easy or that SC2 has a low skill cap. C'mon people!

Belisarius

Australia6208 Posts

January 24 2012 02:08 GMT

#425

On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote:
Do We Want The Game Harder?

On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote:
It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread

Really?

I feel like it should be pretty apparent from real-world sports that making something harder does not automatically lose you viewers. Football isn't easy.

That said, I don't think SC2 needs to be made articifically more difficult by bringing back limited control groups or whatever.

HaruHaru

United States988 Posts

January 24 2012 02:28 GMT

#426

I really want to see what the koreans feel about this. If foreigners have have so many opinions on this topic koreans must have 100x more.

Tortious_Tortoise

United States944 Posts

January 24 2012 02:32 GMT

#427

A game is only as hard as the competition within it. There is no skill cap in a game like StarCraft II. Right now, the game can seem coin-flippy because the skill level is still relatively close between the top level players and the rest. With time, the best of the best will find ways to always beat people that they're better than, and people will consider the game to be less coin-flippy

Zooper31

United States5710 Posts

January 24 2012 02:34 GMT

#428

Didn't play or watch SC because I wanted it to become popular. I started watching because I was amazed at what people could do in the game compared to what I could barely do. If the game gets harder, I just see myself getting more amazed at their feats. If the game gets popular or less popular then so be it, it was meant to be.

AxelTVx

Canada916 Posts

January 24 2012 02:35 GMT

#429

if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.

But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.

firehand101

Australia3152 Posts

January 24 2012 02:40 GMT

#430

On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote:
if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.

But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.

Exactly!

yeastiality

Canada374 Posts

January 24 2012 02:41 GMT

#431

It should be easy for the game to develop much better skill-indexing without losing the things that make it a great spectator sport and source of revenue. I really doubt any true 'pro' players would drop off the radar if the game got harder, but the goal from Blizzard's point of view shouldn't be (and isn't) "make it harder."

The game is already getting 'harder' as we speak, because people are learning it, perfecting strategies and then casting them aside as new ones are found. Whether things need to be changed at the design level isn't clear, but it can't hurt. They won't change the fundamentals like taking bases, having more supply, winning fights efficiently and that sort of thing.

da_head

Canada3350 Posts

January 24 2012 02:46 GMT

#432

the game definitely needs to be harder. whether or not that should be implemented by limiting the ui, i believe something should be done to allow greater utility to be extracted out of units. (eg. bw mutas, carriers, and vultures). day 9 said it best in one of his dailys. if you a-move mutas and vultures, they're pretty shit, but if you micro them properly, it becomes WAYY stronger. also, since macro was a lot harder then it is now, simply getting a maxed army really quickly was impressive, and having many intense micro battles to gain little advantages in order to max out first was crucial. now its mostly hurr durr max out and a-move. though honestly, sc2 has done a lot better than previously anticipated and the game is too young to have a final judgement on it yet (bw pros have yet to switch over). all in all, i think we're almost there.

Luppy1

Singapore177 Posts

January 24 2012 02:47 GMT

#433

Even in the game's current state, SC2 is losing players across all regions except in Korea. So, I don't think what you said is true at all. Keeping the game easy does nothing besides catering to casuals who wouldn't be feel attached to the game and will leave soon enough.

iokke

United States1179 Posts

January 24 2012 02:47 GMT

#434

blows my mind when people say sc2 is nub friendly. Easier than sc:bw - sure. But you must be delusional to argue that sc2 is noob friendly, its much harder to pick up than most of the games out of there,
Bronze/silver, for example, has 0 chance vs plat/diamond etc, not even talking masters and up. In noob friendly games you have a shot at killing people with much more experience than you, at least. Here - no way.

on topic though, i think it should become harder (at least on higher lvls) with added variety of strategies, more impact of unit control etc (not by removing mbs and other nonsense).

how about best of both worlds?
They should make it even more noob friendly at lower levels to get people to stick around, but harder at higher levels.. idk how though:D

Kirazaki

United Kingdom42 Posts

January 24 2012 02:49 GMT

#435

The game is hard enough as it is. There are areas ALL players can improve on and a lot of the mechanics of what make SC2 arguably easier than BW are things that should stay in the game and were missing from BW due to the limitations back when it was made. It is a Real-time Strategy game, it should mostly come down to strategy if you ask me and I feel SC2 has helped do that without crippling what made Starcraft awesome.

On the other hand though I believe BW wasn't as popular in the west simply due to the fact that esports as a whole was a lot smaller and the internet didn't really hit big for a few years after release. As a whole there were many social and technical factors which didn't allow for it to be as big as it could have been.

Luppy1

Singapore177 Posts

January 24 2012 02:57 GMT

#436

On January 24 2012 11:47 iokke wrote:
blows my mind when people say sc2 is nub friendly. Easier than sc:bw - sure. But you must be delusional to argue that sc2 is noob friendly, its much harder to pick up than most of the games out of there,
Bronze/silver, for example, has 0 chance vs plat/diamond etc, not even talking masters and up. In noob friendly games you have a shot at killing people with much more experience than you, at least. Here - no way.

Surely the bronze/silver league players have no chance against those from the higher leagues. But, that's really an extreme example. You're talking about players who just picked up the game / are playing RTS games for the first time.

Even when you watch pro players stream, they still lose quite frequently to random nobodies. Even dragon lost to a diamond player on SEA server the other day, while he's playing on a friend's account. That's how volatile this game is.

iokke

United States1179 Posts

January 24 2012 03:01 GMT

#437

On January 24 2012 11:57 Luppy1 wrote:

Show nested quote +

idk man I've been diamond since forever (played since beta), and ran into desrow during one of the tourneys. I might as well have been bronze..

When my mmr jumps a bit and i start playing better masters players i can also see a big difference and very rarely beat them

The example is not that extreme, we're talking noob friendly so I'm picking leagues with newer players. Pro's may lose to randoms, but the people they play are hardly newbies, and besides don't forget pros do a lot of testing/messing around on ladder. In tournament results such upsets are much more rare and we often get excited about them

plogamer

Canada3132 Posts

January 24 2012 03:13 GMT

#438

I wanted the option of voting for none of the above. But in lieu of such an option, my vote went for keeping it the same.

The game needs to be linear. From the lowest to the highest of skill levels, the game should be entertaining, engaging and challenging.

If you see children playing soccer, would you be thinking, "The game needs to be harder"?

Xiphos

Canada7507 Posts

January 24 2012 03:18 GMT

#439

On January 24 2012 11:49 Kirazaki wrote:
The game is hard enough as it is. There are areas ALL players can improve on and a lot of the mechanics of what make SC2 arguably easier than BW are things that should stay in the game and were missing from BW due to the limitations back when it was made. It is a Real-time Strategy game, it should mostly come down to strategy if you ask me and I feel SC2 has helped do that without crippling what made Starcraft awesome.

On the other hand though I believe BW wasn't as popular in the west simply due to the fact that esports as a whole was a lot smaller and the internet didn't really hit big for a few years after release. As a whole there were many social and technical factors which didn't allow for it to be as big as it could have been.

Trust me the reason why Brood wasn't popular in the west is definitely not because of the internet phenomenon. It is because people have NEVER thought about broadcasting the game as a form of entertainment on television.

The Koreans did it through a channel named Tooniverse, a channel for cartoons. The players weren't even playing in booth but on a mere Ping Pong table set up by the channel's executive. By no means it was meant for serious play. But then later on, the event got a lot of positive praises from the public, people thought it was a enjoyment spectating "WarCraft in space". Subsequently, the Emperor of Terran marched its army into scene. The fangirls loved that charisma of this Boxer character, fangirls squealed at his entrance. This have attracted many audience into watching the game, the game became more and more popular as sponsors rolled in. Plus the most important piece of the history is the rise of PC Bangs in Korea at the time of the game(Brood War)'s release, therefore having the youth of Korea obsessing over SC1. Everything was perfect as literally the stars aligned together.

Second reason is the one you've mentioned on the social issues. See when the like of BoxeR, YellOw, NaDa, Giyom and etc. bursted out, they were treated like rockstars by the fans. In the Western world, you would only get insulted for gaming for the lack of life which still, to a lesser extent exist today.

Witten

United States2094 Posts

January 24 2012 03:20 GMT

#440

On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote:
The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.

Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.

I like it hard.

Victory post.

Prev 1 20 21 22 23 24 30 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Do We Want the Game Harder? - Page 22

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming