|
On January 24 2012 12:01 iokke wrote:
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
No one is claiming the game is newb friendly. Of course you will lose when you're still learning the game. Once they know the basics, even mimicking a pro's build for particular matchups is sufficient to give them an undeserving win. They don't even need to be better than their opponents or anything. This game only very slightly rewards the better mechanical player for even games. People are claiming that the game is sometimes not hard enough to differentiate mediocre players from good players.
Also, don't be silly. If they're messing around on the ladder, I wouldn't be using that as an example. Some of them are even reviewing the replays after they lose.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote:
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"?
Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children.
|
On January 24 2012 12:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote:
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"? Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children.
Er, I used the children playing soccer as a contrast to a professional league soccer. Or am I getting trolled?
|
On January 24 2012 11:47 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
|
On January 24 2012 12:42 AxelTVx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 11:47 Luppy1 wrote: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. 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. No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
Evidence for the bold text?
Are you drawing the link between 2 isolated things this way? Fact 1. Game is easier. Fact 2. There are more western pros. Therefore, there are more western pros because game is easier?
|
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Doesn't the difficulty involved deal very heavily on the people you play? Like, you play against other people, and you cant mean that you want your opponents to be harder. So what we're saying here is that we want a larger skill gap, so it's more difficult for other people to play? I dont see how it matters when you're always playing someone else.. If we were talking about single player, then ya. i get it. But when you play against another human constantly idk why the mechanical arduousness of the game needs to increase.
|
more micro capabilities. There is no counter micro to forcefields or Fungal growth. There's a lack of "strategy" in my opinion because of land control, deathballs, and various mechanics that discourage such play. Get harder, make me sweat like Broodwar pros even though I'm not a pro in either game!
|
If you're just comparing SC2 to BW then yes it's easier, but if you're comparing SC2 to any other popular game out there on the market then it's a TON more difficult and complex by comparison.
So much so that yes I think it does turn off a lot of people to the game because they feel like they have to climb a mountain to grasp even basic concepts. I've talked to a lot of my friends about this trying to convert them over to SC2 from games like LoL and CoD. SC2 takes a lot of effort to learn and is very unforgiving compared to other multiplayer games out there so it turns away a lot of potentially new players.
I've read a ton of stuff about how there needs to be an increase in difficulty in order to make this game as an e-sport as competitve as BW is but there needs to be a balance in making it both difficult yet accessible and at the moment I'd argue it's rather inaccessable for a lot of players.
There has to be a balance of both, that's the bottom line.
|
i dont agree to make the game "harder" "i dont want to play a game that depends more on who is the better robot"
but i agree with making the game more rewarding for the pros.micro mechanics/scouting options/and rewarding reads more its depressing to see pros knowing exactly whats going on but still lose to it.
the only thing that rewards you the most in sc2"in my opinion"
is spreading your army because of the ridiculous splash dmg. mechanic.
but thats about it.
Dont forget that the rts.genre is a small niche
and a learning cliff type of game where you get kicked in the face when you want to climb its even a smaller one.
and pls. stop talking yeah i want a hard game bla bla when you are not even able to master this one."and i dont mean master league with that"
and when you are one of the huks,idras,heros then fudge you guys you are the 0.1% <3
and you play the game because of me the 98%
|
On January 24 2012 12:27 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 12:01 iokke wrote:
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 No one is claiming the game is newb friendly. Of course you will lose when you're still learning the game. Once they know the basics, even mimicking a pro's build for particular matchups is sufficient to give them an undeserving win. They don't even need to be better than their opponents or anything. This game only very slightly rewards the better mechanical player for even games. People are claiming that the game is sometimes not hard enough to differentiate mediocre players from good players. Also, don't be silly. If they're messing around on the ladder, I wouldn't be using that as an example. Some of them are even reviewing the replays after they lose.
I think i read on page one about how newb friendly the game is was writing about that.
I'd argue that a mechanically better players will win much more. I honestly do believe that mechanically better players get rewarded plenty, unless your really behind on planning/strategy.
sure someone can copy a pro's build, and if he is decent he may win against you if YOU dont react properly. In that case you should lose the game even if your mechanics are better;o Did he just get lucky on the build? Maybe. You still should have lost if you didnt scout/react well. There's nothing wrong with losing because your strategy is inferior. Again, if your mechanics are better and strategy is up to par, you will still win more than lose.
Also, ofc you can lose to random things from "lesser players", but this applies to any game, doesn't it?
tldr edit:
Maybe sometimes lesser players get lucky and win, but in the long run the game does reward the better player.
|
On January 24 2012 12:42 AxelTVx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 11:47 Luppy1 wrote: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. 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. No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
I'd argue the general world is more ready for tons of western progamers than 10 years ago when starcraft 1 came out. Easy doesn't equal more non koreans..
The game has a significant margin for being harder and i really dont think destiny or idra will quit if the game gets harder. Itll just reward better players, which is what we want no? In short i disagree
|
On January 24 2012 11:40 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +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!
Excellent, you have an enlarged esports scene...for what purpose if the game still sucks? So you would rather have a more popular game than a better game? If so, I pity you.
|
Yes please, I would love SC2 to be equally hard as Brood War.
|
SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
|
On January 24 2012 12:39 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 12:36 Whitewing wrote:On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote:
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"? Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children. Er, I used the children playing soccer as a contrast to a professional league soccer. Or am I getting trolled?
uhm you are getting trolled <.< that blew right over your head initially didn't it? lol
OT: my personal feelings are that a game needs to be harder for a prolevel player yet accessable and playable to a newbie.. idk there needs to be a better middle ground.
|
On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote:
SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
i beg to differ, there is a maximum unit selection of 255!
|
On January 24 2012 13:32 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote:
SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'. i beg to differ, there is a maximum unit selection of 255!
oxxo, please dont spread lies here on TL -.-
|
If you're just comparing SC2 to BW then yes it's easier, but if you're comparing SC2 to any other popular game out there on the market then it's a TON more difficult and complex by comparison.
.
|
We do not need the game to be 'harder'. Things like auto mining, infinite unit selection, smart casting etc have made the game
easier to play, allowing more casuals and a larger user base, and this is a great thing. What the game does need however is additional 'optional' tricks that can be used to get ahead.
For example - mineral boosting. This trick was discovered early in sc2, allowing high APM players a slight advantage by makin their workers mine more efficiently adding the return cargo command into the mix. It had zero effect on casual players who
could still mine normally if they wished and added a further layer for the better players to get ahead in the early game. Yet this was removed by blizzard, even though it's almost the perfect type mechanic to have in sc2.
|
On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote:
SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
This. I don't understand why people are begging for 'harder' when the GSL just keeps getting better and better and the truly elite are starting to truly distinguish themselves...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
