|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On February 05 2013 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 06:37 rezoacken wrote:
Really, the first milestone to any kind of map changes is to make pros use these changes in Tournaments first.
Not necessarily the whole map pool, but like one or 2 maps in the pool using this idea.
If it provides better matches, the map pool will expand on it. Then, if major tournament start using them and its quite accepted they provide better matches, Blizzard will follow. It will take them one year to aknowledge it but they will eventually come to make the change if it is a common practice in tournament. Kind of--in 2010 Desert Oasis always produced the best games (spectator wise) but everyone hated the map (player wise) and it was one of the first maps to disappear. It was good since it created hectic and crazy games, it was bad because it was no fun to play on. Don't get me wrong--6min2gas seems like a LOT of fun to play on, but just because it *produces* better games (viewer wise) does not mean it will catch on player wise.
If I wanted something to really become a popular sport with viewers, I would satisfy viewers first but maybe that's just me and anyway that's another topic.
|
On February 05 2013 06:51 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 05 2013 06:37 rezoacken wrote:
Really, the first milestone to any kind of map changes is to make pros use these changes in Tournaments first.
Not necessarily the whole map pool, but like one or 2 maps in the pool using this idea.
If it provides better matches, the map pool will expand on it. Then, if major tournament start using them and its quite accepted they provide better matches, Blizzard will follow. It will take them one year to aknowledge it but they will eventually come to make the change if it is a common practice in tournament. Kind of--in 2010 Desert Oasis always produced the best games (spectator wise) but everyone hated the map (player wise) and it was one of the first maps to disappear. It was good since it created hectic and crazy games, it was bad because it was no fun to play on. Don't get me wrong--6min2gas seems like a LOT of fun to play on, but just because it *produces* better games (viewer wise) does not mean it will catch on player wise. If I wanted something to really become a popular sport with viewers, I would satisfy viewers first but maybe that's just me and anyway that's up to discussion.
I completely agree with you 
I'm not trying to say that it's a bad idea--I'm simply bringing up relevant historical patterns within the demographic and product history of the sport in question.
I think what was great about those small maps in early SC2 was how hectic and pressured the games felt. If we are to make maps larger--we need to keep that "tightness" and sense of urgency. Things such as high ground, multilevel design, islands, cliffs, less minerals/base, mineral only expansions, gas only expansions, etc... All those types of things would produce that.
For example, imagine if the natural 3rd was mineral only and if you wanted to get gases #5 and #6 you should get the 4rth? And the 5th base is Gas only but is a rich gas geyser so Mules can't get it--but the 6th is just a mineral only expo? etc...
Suddenly the order of expansions you get will determine your strategy.
I would personally want as many of these as possible spread across the available map pools. So some maps be 6min2gas, some maps have weird expos, some maps are choke heavy, some maps are wide open, some maps have a lot of gas, some maps have very few gas geysers, etc....
For example, what if the natural was the only 2gas expo and all other bases (including the main) only had 1 gas? Suddenly you can't turtle and you're forced to depend on low tech and mid tech units while babysitting gas heavy units.
LOTS of possibilities that are only interesting if they're spread out--but not standard.
|
On February 05 2013 06:03 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 05:58 Baum wrote:
I think there are other ways to increase the depth of the game without making changes that make the game much less accessible for casual players and viewers of the game. So I really disagree with the proposal of having different sets of rules for how many mineral patches and gas an expansions yields. It's very hard to balance the game if there is variance on that factor. How does it make is less accessible? The things it affects (build orders, higher level strategies) are opaque to noobs and noobie spectators anyway. There don't have to be rules for non-8m2g bases, it's just non-8m2g bases.
My point was that I think it's much better for the game to have a standardized layout of bases than to vary the layout. If different maps have different layouts you need way too much practice to cover all of them decently. It makes the entry barrier way higher.
|
you guys are great for the game but your kinda trying to fix problem C and D which is the amount one can build per base leading towards less expansion style play that still maxes or has high army supply
the real problem is deathballs. a 100/100 is still a deathball, just a smaller deathball. you need to lessen the army control so stagnated attacks come in. blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST
heres the problem with any solution you come up with. blizzard will not make the game any harder. casuals are money and skill alienate casuals
|
On February 05 2013 10:44 Baum wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 06:03 EatThePath wrote:On February 05 2013 05:58 Baum wrote:
I think there are other ways to increase the depth of the game without making changes that make the game much less accessible for casual players and viewers of the game. So I really disagree with the proposal of having different sets of rules for how many mineral patches and gas an expansions yields. It's very hard to balance the game if there is variance on that factor. How does it make is less accessible? The things it affects (build orders, higher level strategies) are opaque to noobs and noobie spectators anyway. There don't have to be rules for non-8m2g bases, it's just non-8m2g bases. My point was that I think it's much better for the game to have a standardized layout of bases than to vary the layout. If different maps have different layouts you need way too much practice to cover all of them decently. It makes the entry barrier way higher.
I think you've got it backwards. I'm not sure what level you play at or if you're familiar with lower levels, but the players in bronze/silver and maybe even gold have decidedly poor economy management and do not execute build orders anywhere near to spec. And they often have production infrastructure completely inappropriate for their economy, and even if it wasn't, it's not used efficiently and they bank. Their expansion timing is sometimes seemingly arbitrary. The point is, fractional changes in base income will not be playing a big role in their games compared to just getting the basics down, which can be done independent of specialized strategies.
However, it will have a marked effect on higher skill level games. Certainly it will make it harder to account for a wide range of economic setups, but this also makes the game deeper, as well as broader if used a certain way. Higher skill cap more than higher skill floor.
casuals are money and skill alienate casuals
It doesn't have to. Just because you can win by being better at something doesn't mean it's not fun to play at a lower skill level against equal skill players, which is what the matchmaking provides.
|
On February 05 2013 11:08 sunglasseson wrote:
you guys are great for the game but your kinda trying to fix problem C and D which is the amount one can build per base leading towards less expansion style play that still maxes or has high army supply
the real problem is deathballs. a 100/100 is still a deathball, just a smaller deathball. you need to lessen the army control so stagnated attacks come in. blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST
heres the problem with any solution you come up with. blizzard will not make the game any harder. casuals are money and skill alienate casuals
I'm glad LoL follows this model. They have a set number of heroes and items that never changes allowing strategy to actuall-
Wait what? Heroes and items are changed/juggled/reworked constantly? BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CASUAL PLAYER BASE!
Wait, you mean that so long as Riot Games keeps their constituents informed of changes their clientele adapts to the new norms--even the casual ones?
Man... I guess... You're simply wrong in every way shape and form? I'm sorry, I was trying to agree with you but the biggest game right now that actually caters specifically to casuals goes against everything you said both philosophically and empirically. It's like being wrong in the most complete way imaginable. It's actually a bit embarrassing.
|
My point was that I think it's much better for the game to have a standardized layout of bases than to vary the layout. If different maps have different layouts you need way too much practice to cover all of them decently. It makes the entry barrier way higher.
As a bronzey, frankly I believe this would be good to me. What's the clichee'd tip everyone gives me to improve? "Macro better". So, its all about having better mechanics. Improving the mechanics is boring to many of us low-leaguers, because we're into Starcraft for the strategy, not for the action. That's why many don't practice or just give up.
If there was such thing as a "chaos ladder" with lots of gimmicky maps, I would feel so much better... my mechanics would still suck, but my knowledge would make a difference. "This is a 6m map, I better use strategy X". "This is a map where the expansions after natural are gas or mineral only... guess i'll take gas this time". "Macro better" wouldn't be just a matter of clicking at things faster, but of knowing how to use the map for your benefit.
Does it create a streamlined game experience? Does it help me to actually improve in Starcraft? No. "For some reason, I'm good at 6m maps, but not at 7m maps, and I don't know why". Well, if you're bronze or silver, you're probably not going to find out! But it makes the game funnier, more accessible and less repetitive - which means, more people playing, for longer periods of time.
That's how you attract the "casual player" to actual Starcraft, instead of Arcade.
+ Show Spoiler +Think of the sports that people play at their neighborhoods. They don't play by the standard rules. They play by any rules they feel like that day. They will never get competitive, and that's why they have fun with it: because it's not competitive. This summer I played 3 soccer games with my relatives, and my team lost everytime. Do you think I got "soccer anxiety" after that?
the real problem is deathballs. a 100/100 is still a deathball, just a smaller deathball. you need to lessen the army control so stagnated attacks come in. blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST
IMO, limiting keybinds scares casuals away. It makes the game hard as hell, because you can't even take your troops out of your base and you feel ridiculous.
A better aproach would be bringing overkill back. Overkill disencourages deathballs, and help skillful players to overcome sheer damage (to penetrate siege lines with fewer units, for example). With overkill, any noob can manage to get his army from point A to B, but few people can make the army be 100% effective.
|
On February 05 2013 11:08 sunglasseson wrote:
blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST
Doesn't go far enough in my opinion. You should only be able to select ONE unit at a time. Also you should only be able to play using your feet whilst standing on your head. That'll really sort people out and make it harder to play! More skill, right?
I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once.
The simple fact is that it IS beneficial to not straight up just select all and blob up. But why do people not do it? Because the benefits aren't really that strong. For example: taking the time and attention to adjust the Protoss army into the perfect layered configuration just isn't worth it for the benefit it provides. Even small things like staggering your colossus line in PvP against enemy colossus to reduce the splash just doesn't see enough use.
|
On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 11:08 sunglasseson wrote:
blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST Doesn't go far enough in my opinion. You should only be able to select ONE unit at a time. Also you should only be able to play using your feet whilst standing on your head. That'll really sort people out and make it harder to play! More skill, right? I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once. The simple fact is that it IS beneficial to not straight up just select all and blob up. But why do people not do it? Because the benefits aren't really that strong. For example: taking the time and attention to adjust the Protoss army into the perfect layered configuration just isn't worth it for the benefit it provides. Even small things like staggering your colossus line in PvP against enemy colossus to reduce the splash just doesn't see enough use.
Well what limited unit selection does do is make it harder for the person with a bigger army. In BW, with limited selections, the player who had more stuff is also challenged a lot more to manage all the stuff, and with the pathing, it also loses efficiency as you go up in number. This applies to economic leads as well, since macro gets a lot harder.
This helps counteract the natural snowballing effect of the economy in the game to make it easier to come back from a deficit.
I don't think it's %100 necessary for the game, but the things Blizzard has done to make up for the downsides of switching to an easier interface (macro mechanics, etc) haven't done the full job, it seems.
|
On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 11:08 sunglasseson wrote:
blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST Doesn't go far enough in my opinion. You should only be able to select ONE unit at a time. Also you should only be able to play using your feet whilst standing on your head. That'll really sort people out and make it harder to play! More skill, right? I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once. The simple fact is that it IS beneficial to not straight up just select all and blob up. But why do people not do it? Because the benefits aren't really that strong. For example: taking the time and attention to adjust the Protoss army into the perfect layered configuration just isn't worth it for the benefit it provides. Even small things like staggering your colossus line in PvP against enemy colossus to reduce the splash just doesn't see enough use.
Double or triple the effect of AoE and you will almost surely end all deathballs.
As an example--the Reaver did 125 damage a shot over a large area, a colossus does 30 damage a shot over a smaller area. You'd be crazy to clump versus reavers, you can still make a clump work against colossus.
|
LoL's community is far more 'hardcore' than SC2. A lot of people play SC2 for the campaign or the arcade or they just follow the pro-scene, where with LoL they all actually play the game.
In any case, about FRB: the community wants smaller maps because low-econ play is more interesting and the community wants larger maps because being positional play is more interesting. And then it turns out that if you have both, larger maps with smaller bases, the game is not designed around this and becomes weird because you can't control space anyway. Not only has Blizzard never indicated any interest in changing the game to accommodate for different economy behavior, nobody has ever even bothered asking them in an interview whether they have any interest, because it's probably so obviously something they won't do. So whatever.
|
On February 06 2013 02:17 Grumbels wrote:
LoL's community is far more 'hardcore' than SC2. A lot of people play SC2 for the campaign or the arcade or they just follow the pro-scene, where with LoL they all actually play the game.
In any case, about FRB: the community wants smaller maps because low-econ play is more interesting and the community wants larger maps because being positional play is more interesting. And then it turns out that if you have both, larger maps with smaller bases, the game is not designed around this and becomes weird because you can't control space anyway. Not only has Blizzard never indicated any interest in changing the game to accommodate for different economy behavior, nobody has ever even bothered asking them in an interview whether they have any interest, because it's probably so obviously something they won't do. So whatever.
By "play the game" you mean comp stomps.
|
On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:
I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once.
I agree about limit unit selection being stupid. Because while it is frustrating not to be able to take your units out of your base, beeing able to do so isn't remarkable or interesting. So the games doesn't lose anything by infinite selection. I agree with you, the problem is the lack of incentive to split units.
Exacly why "making the AI stupid" isn't that... stupid. Sometimes less is more. Overkill can be used by intelligent players as a way to penetrate siege lines, for example. Also, overkill weakens deathballs, because more attacks are wasted. The advantage of 20 marines versus 15 marines isn't so big. So there is more incentive to split you units.
|
On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:
I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once.
fyi, many sports have you 'wrestling bad AI'. Play football and the ball will bounce uncontrollably off your feet if you don't have good technique. Nobody is going to say that 'geeh, football is badly designed because it's so hard to control the ball', on the other hand it's what draws people to the game. Then there are sports where you don't even interact with your opponent, such as athletics.
|
On February 06 2013 03:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:
I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once.
fyi, many sports have you 'wrestling bad AI'. Play football and the ball will bounce uncontrollably off your feet if you don't have good technique. Nobody is going to say that 'geeh, football is badly designed because it's so hard to control the ball', on the other hand it's what draws people to the game. Then there are sports where you don't even interact with your opponent, such as athletics.
Well, it's arbitrary. Footballs are almond shape so it can be thrown farther and more accurately as opposed to futbols which are heavier and rounder for better foot control as opposed to billiard balls which are solid and light etc...
I do get where you're getting at--but at the end of the day it's arbitrary what the ball looks like. Limited selection, max selection, etc...
Having limited unit selection will make deathballs less clumped--but that's mostly because of user error. Good players will still make deathballs and use them as effectively as they are now. it will simply be more onesided when it happens.
|
On February 06 2013 03:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I do get where you're getting at--but at the end of the day it's arbitrary what the ball looks like. Limited selection, max selection, etc...
I think that's what he meant. Soccer balls can be made heavier if FIFA wants a game with more ball control. Or it can be like Jabulani (South Africa Coup ball), that ugly thing that existed so the ball could be kicked farther away.
The game "rules" - the pathing, the AI, the UI - must be made thinking in what we want the game to look like. Not thinking in what rules are "fair" and what aren't. Because all game rules are arbitrary.
I don't think unit selection limit is a bad idea because it would be the same thing as making players use the mouse with their feet... it is a bad idea, IMO, because it doesn't help the game to be more interesting, but makes it less accessible for casuals. And the game needs more, not fewer, people.
Overkill, on the other hand... I don't know if it is "stupid" to "unevolve" the AI. But it would make the game more interesting.
|
All this data is very interesting and well developed but does anybody think 6/7m will ever happen? I can assure you it won't. Give SC2 some time to develop and for the love of god stop trying to make it exactly like brood war. It's an entirely different game with new mechanics.
|
On February 07 2013 02:23 Ewok wrote:
All this data is very interesting and well developed but does anybody think 6/7m will ever happen? I can assure you it won't. Give SC2 some time to develop and for the love of god stop trying to make it exactly like brood war. It's an entirely different game with new mechanics.
If tournaments did it then Blizzard will be forced to.
But tournaments won't do it, so Blizz won't have to.
|
On February 06 2013 05:01 nerak wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 03:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I do get where you're getting at--but at the end of the day it's arbitrary what the ball looks like. Limited selection, max selection, etc...
I think that's what he meant. Soccer balls can be made heavier if FIFA wants a game with more ball control. Or it can be like Jabulani (South Africa Coup ball), that ugly thing that existed so the ball could be kicked farther away. The game "rules" - the pathing, the AI, the UI - must be made thinking in what we want the game to look like. Not thinking in what rules are "fair" and what aren't. Because all game rules are arbitrary. I don't think unit selection limit is a bad idea because it would be the same thing as making players use the mouse with their feet... it is a bad idea, IMO, because it doesn't help the game to be more interesting, but makes it less accessible for casuals. And the game needs more, not fewer, people. Overkill, on the other hand... I don't know if it is "stupid" to "unevolve" the AI. But it would make the game more interesting.
Tennis improved their racket technology and as a result the gameplay changed: you can more easily hit topspin passing shots at high speed, so netplay becomes more risky and is quite rare now. I think in retrospect it's a similar argument: you 'improve' technology, but it doesn't necessarily improve gameplay and has unintended consequences. The selection limit in Brood War was one of the reasons that splitting up your army was encouraged and that death ball play was punished. By simply removing such limits under the guise of improving the interface, you lose out on favored gameplay.
I honestly don't think that the selection limit is a very good idea anyway though, one reason being that we are all used to infinite selection now; secondly, because it'd too punishing to use of zerglings and marines, whereas protoss, with all their high supply units, would be comfortable with the chosen selection limit; thirdly, because Blizzard would chicken out and leave it at a limit of 24, which is probably too high to be genuinely limiting; and finally, because I don't think limited selection by itself would be enough to make a noticeable positive impact (I think it requires multiple changes), so it won't even accomplish what it sets out to do. I think it would have a place in a different game, or perhaps with a different design where certain units take up less space, and I also think it was only a part of what encouraged splitting your units in Brood War; i.e. you could have removed it and still be left with wonderful gameplay.
Still, I don't agree that we should outright dismiss the suggestion with some silly straw man about having to solve equations while playing to improve difficulty. You have to pick the interface to suit the game, it's a folly to feel obliged to constantly increase the level of automation and control at the possible expense of gameplay. I suppose it's punishing to casual players, but well, that's one of those 'first impressions' that say nothing about the actual quality of the game. I hope Blizzard would have enough faith in their game and their brand to trust many people to see past this first impression and treasure the lasting replay value it could provide, all dependent on game design choices. And the solution that I favor, which is to have a separate 1v1 mode with different rules for interface and units, would sidestep this problem to begin with.
And well, proper unit design might be enough to replicate all the Brood War mechanics, and Blizzard might succeed after all, but it's a daunting task.
|
Canada11439 Posts
I think the problem with adding limited selection now is it would be too hard on the eve of the next expansion release. I think you could successfully make the case when the game is first made (SC3 lets say) and explain during development is that this a design choice to avoid mob battles and that hotkey groups are basically like extremely flexible formations.
I've heard it said when people learn to play the game 'right' they will start using hotkeys for their army. But I wonder exactly when that starts. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that 1 hotkey armies go a fair way up Blizzard's ladder. In contrast, a BW newb who may not know a single hotkey- the first ones they will probably learn is to hotkey their army.
Same with AoE2 for that matter. AoE2 had a very large selection limit, but it seems to me one of the reasons people learned to hotkey their armies even a very newbie level was because if you selected the entire army, the entire army would slow down to the pace of the slowest units. (The monk or trebuchets.) Therefore, even really terrible AoE2 players that had a hard time beating one computer on normal and knew no other hotkeys, would still make separate hotkeys. I guess that would be another way of encouraging multiple tactical groups vs mob battles. Slow everything down to the slowest unit selected and file it into a long/ (spread out?) column. Mind you there are quite a few units of equal speed so maybe we wouldn't see a very large variation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
