|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.
In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.
In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)
I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.
Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.
Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.
You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)
If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'?
|
I can understand the enthusiasm but I can't help but feel people are getting excited a bit prematurely. There's no conclusive evidence at all yet that this change will actually improve the game, or even achieve OP's goals. As of yet, this is still mostly conjecture. It would take an absolute ton of testing before you know for sure that this change actually succeeds in achieving anything.
Honestly, I see this and sympathize with the goals, but this game's community is full of people with this notion that Blizz is clueless and that their simple, novel idea would bring back some of those fabled BW dynamics. It's hardly surprising that this is getting so much support. I find it all pretty unrealistic. Go ahead though, prove me wrong. It'd be cool if it worked, but don't go into testing this super biased towards it. It wouldn't be very worthwhile testing without some skepticism.
|
On March 17 2012 08:11 Beakyboo wrote:
I can understand the enthusiasm but I can't help but feel people are getting excited a bit prematurely.
I think people are mainly excited over the fact that there's been an actual contribution to the SC2 forum on TL. It's been a bit of a wasteland from time to time.
Obviously the concept has to be tested first, and there's a pretty big emphasis on that in the OP.
|
On March 17 2012 08:07 Marduce wrote:
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.
In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.
In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)
I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.
Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.
Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.
You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)
If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'?
The last thing SC2 needs is to be made easier. Less people play, yes, but equally its viewership is growing. This change would make it better spectator-wise as well.
|
Just skimmed through, maybe you touched on this but.. This might completely break balance, no?
|
On March 17 2012 08:14 ProxyKnoxy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 08:07 Marduce wrote:
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.
In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.
In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)
I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.
Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.
Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.
You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)
If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'? The last thing SC2 needs is to be made easier. Less people play, yes, but equally its viewership is growing. This change would make it better spectator-wise as well.
I never said it should be made easier. What I suggested is it's right on the verge of being too difficult. There was of course an initial boom with the launch, it's only natural that we have to shrink substantially to reach equilibrium. What I am suggesting is that bad players are an extremely crucial aspect of the community too, and we must consider them. I know that Blizzard will. They won't do anything to jeopardize the popularity among players. Even if it is only the popularity amongst the bad players.
|
personally I don't find it that fun or interesting to constantly be running out of resource nodes and constantly have oversaturated mineral lines. I think SC2's problems lie elsewhere, although I can see the appeal of only having one gas and 6 mineral nodes at the initial base.
I like the idea someone else in this thread had, of trying to shift the community to an entirely different, better designed RTS.. too bad that RTS doesn't exist. No one is going to be able to go back to BW at this point, it's just too dated despite how beautifully designed it is and how much nostalgia is involved.
|
On March 17 2012 08:07 Marduce wrote:
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.
In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.
In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)
I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.
Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.
Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.
You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)
If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'?
I feel like this change will make the game more approachable because as you say everything is slower. Money comes in slower, I have more time to spend it. 'noobs' will always play at their level. it will be the same.
|
You've made a compelling argument. Thanks for taking the time out to write the thread and put the analysis together. I'm interested in testing it out and seeing how it feels.
Publishing those maps was such a brilliant idea because you now have an opportunity to collect data to support your conclusion!
|
Awesome post
Read it, looks very interesting. Is it necessary? Maybe. We probably will have some time because of the expansions where the strategies are not set in stone, but the promise of a different game dynamic with longer stages (early game, late game) is very nice. I'd be awesome if a tournament was created for this with a prize pool to really encourage players to explore the concept. Maybe Day [9] would be interested?
|
Anyone wanna practice on this? vgYosho 716 NA
|
Canada11486 Posts
Wow, that's very detailed.
It really was intentional on Blizzard's part. I can't remember the interview/ Battle Report. But they were talking about getting out of the early game really fast with increased resource rate collection because early game was 'boring.'
Slowing down resource collection actually helps with another problem- early game scouting and rapid army tech switches. It's a lot harder to swing back and forth between army compositions when resource collection is down.
And certainly, BGH and Fastest Possible were extremely popular maps in BW. But should those be the proleague maps/ ladder maps? Let those ones dominate Custom games.
I think the depth problem is a bigger deal, but the breadth could be a significant issue too.
|
WOW quite a post. I really would like to hear some pro players opinions on this as they are the ones who obvious play this game the most, the minerals per patch/base is something i'm not too sure about myself. From a casual gamers point of view; firstly I enjoy SC2. I do agree with you point of the map designs, so many maps have 3rd bases that are hard to secure and can seem very hard to secure on certain maps. Another point I agree with is the fact that mistakes are punished when it comes to units, especially playing a lot of unit comps everything seems to die so fast 
Im pretty sure SC2 was made first and foremost for e-sport purposes. Its incredible hard for a casual gamer or anyone who can not spend hours every day playing. Mechanic wise its takes a lot of practice and then small mistakes can get punished harshly and the game moves at such a fast pace. So many all-ins to remember how to scout/defend against aswell. It really is hard game and why so many people get frustrated when playing.
Still though, SC2 is a great game, the pro scene is enjoyable and for me is the only e-sport currently I would watch as I can appreciate how well the pros play. Do not think SC2 will see such drastic changes like you propose and quite frankly I do not think its needed. Still I think you could have a career in the gaming industry, great post and show a lot of knowledge and passion for RTS. Try contacting Dustin Browder and look for a job with him to work on a future RTS game :D
|
On March 17 2012 08:31 Falling wrote:
Wow, that's very detailed.
It really was intentional on Blizzard's part. I can't remember the interview/ Battle Report. But they were talking about getting out of the early game really fast with increased resource rate collection because early game was 'boring.'
Slowing down resource collection actually helps with another problem- early game scouting and rapid army tech switches. It's a lot harder to swing back and forth between army compositions when resource collection is down.
And certainly, BGH and Fastest Possible were extremely popular maps in BW. But should those be the proleague maps/ ladder maps? Let those ones dominate Custom games.
I think the depth problem is a bigger deal, but the breadth could be a significant issue too.
Yah, but the real problem is their custom game system is goddamn terrible that casuals can't play casual maps. The casuals are mixed in with the serious players on the same map pool, and it just makes it impossible to provide a good experience for both at the same time. Casuals should be given the freedom to do whatever they want, because that's how BW and War3 worked and those games were fantastic for years and continue to be awesome for casual players.
I don't understand how Blizzard can take themselves seriously as an "esports" company while simultaneously dumbing down the game as much as possible for the ADHD call of duty 13 yr olds. Ironically, their attempt to make the game "more exciting" makes it more predictable and less diverse, making it boring to watch.
I'd rather watch D+ games of BW than pro streams any day. There's so many more interesting things going on in every game of BW. The changes outlined in this article really could improve the spectator experience dramatically.
|
Only halfway through so far. But I just already wanted to congratulate you on this thought-provoking article. I would really love to see some maps like this in action to see how it goes.
|
Ideas like this are going to be ignored by the majority of readers who do not wish to sift through long, well thought out essays. Perhaps a creative poster designer could team up with the OP to give it a bit of graphic flair to make it easily presentable to more people. With that said, I really do enjoy it when members of the community have a neat idea and actually follow through and really develop it in their post. Kudos.
|
Very nice post, and I'm glad to see you working on this as I think it's a very important idea. I will try to play some games on the new maps.
|
It's a nice detailed post but I don't see AT ALL how lowering minerals per base is gonna improve this game so much.
It's rediculous to compare BW and sc2 mining rates as the games are just completely different. Yes sc2 mining rates are higher but the game is faster paced in general as that is more popular nowadays which I agree with.., BW has too long build up times imo. Just upping the supply cap would be a much more elegant solution to solve the problem of people not getting enough bases and much easier to implement and balance..
Lowering the amount of minerals screws balance completely, for example protoss would be completely dead with it as they reach saturation the fastest BY FAR. The make workers the fastest in the beginning of the game AND they can't expand as freely as zerg.
The reason sc2 is not as interesting as bw has nothing to do with this issue but with other factors. I think the biggest difference is that comebacks are much more likely in bw then in sc2 making for more interesting and swingy games where people grind out a tactical win over time unlike sc2 where one often wins in one bland big attack.
Reasons for this are:
- micro is easier in sc2 and battles last shorter. In BW the smaller army has much more chance to win by positioning, abilities etc. in sc2 the bigger army practically can't lose.
- aggression is much easier in sc2 because following through on your attack is generally easier, mechanics like warpgates and multiple building selection make this easy.
In my opinion BW is just a much more flawed game with the luck that many of these flaws make the game much more interesting. Somewhat silly things as weird pathing, reaver's bugging etc etc. add a very cool part to the game for the spectator. The 12 unit cap also naturally forces players into multiple control groups which automatically makes it easier for them to multitask as you have to do that anyway.
The fact that sc2 makes it easier for the player has lead to more bland games so far then BW but doesn't make it the worse game per se, I think they just need to add more interesting aspects that reward players for play and add some sort of aspects that make coming back a bit easier. Units that would benefit from being in small groups or armies are needed really.
|
uh... So I thought I was working on a long incredibly and detailed post...uh...
We need to organize a project on TL to specifically play on these maps and actually see how this plays out. Seriously.
|
Very nice read, I've been saying this for months.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +It's a nice detailed post but I don't see AT ALL how lowering minerals per base is gonna improve this game so much.
It's rediculous to compare BW and sc2 mining rates as the games are just completely different. Yes sc2 mining rates are higher but the game is faster paced in general as that is more popular nowadays which I agree with.., BW has too long build up times imo. Just upping the supply cap would be a much more elegant solution to solve the problem of people not getting enough bases and much easier to implement and balance..
Lowering the amount of minerals screws balance completely, for example protoss would be completely dead with it as they reach saturation the fastest BY FAR. The make workers the fastest in the beginning of the game AND they can't expand as freely as zerg.
Blizzard has stated that they can't increase supply cap because they know that there will be a lot of computer issues. They want the game as playable for everyone as possible. That's the way Blizzard has always been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
