|
On October 11 2013 09:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 08:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 05:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:54 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that. Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex. The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity. Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit. It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others. In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games. I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS! But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take. Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier... But even then. It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc... But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch. I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion. And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch.. But thats personal bias. All the things I'm showing not only have scenes, but their own versions on "bonjwas" and top level players that everyone knows. No SC2 figure has yet to match the type of Domination Kai Budd used to have on the Magic the Gathering Scene despite writing and posting MANY articles on not just how he plays but on how to beat his plays as well. Didn't matter that he would tell the world how to stop him, he'd still top 8 every Grand Prix he went to. Same types of players in chess, in go, in poker, etc... Many things are popular despite being easy. I can never run as fast as Bolt, but watching him run isn't interesting to me personally. But many others love him. i dont talk about domination in a scene, i talk about things i couldnt pull off in terms of execution. that are two different things. Ofc u can appreciate the "skill" of all these topplayers in the different games, but its just not exciting to watch. And picking bolt as an example is maybe not the best, is it? What about Messi, Nadal, etc? Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 09:07 bombsauce wrote:
Well that's all fine and dandy for you.
Here we have a pretty good example of the failings in these arguments.
Party A: I like watching chess for strategy and decision making
Party B: It is too easy to execute a chess move, I think it's boring
Clearly two completely different opinions. From here, you guys can talk in circles trying to convince the other that your opinion is better.. but do you really think that is going to happen on this TL forum?
Some people like SC2, some people like MOBA. Obviously one is generally more popular than the other (see viewer/player numbers), but does that mean one is "better" than the other? It's like a ping pong enthusiast and a soccer hoodlum arguing about which sport it better.
It's only going to lead to butthurt
I dont say the one is clearly better and that it "shouldnt be allowed" to appreciate that strategy aspect. I just dont think that a game without any execution can be really exciting TO WATCH. I mean there is literally no difference between watching a chessgame live or reading about it. I think that tells you that it doesnt make a good watchable "sport". The same isnt true for any "real" sports. As i said, i maybe can appreciate the skilllevel the players are on, but its just not enjoyable to watch, cause there is no execution part. Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 09:11 Xialos wrote:
Ofc a 3v1 gank does not require epic execution, but a 5v5 teamfight requires massive execution skills (at a pro level of play). I don't know if you follow the dota scene but there's a reason why the pro players base has barely changed in the past years, there's just a few people who can reach the 'pro level' of execution. Thats why teams like Navi can dominate the scene for years, it's hard to get there, it's not just about knowledge. I have to admit that i dont know much about dota, but generel in mobas: I am not so sure about that either. All you have to do (as one person) in a teamfight is to use like 4 spells and some kiting. I feel its much mor about knowledge there aswell (when can you fight, what to focus, when to disengage) I can see that there is teamwork needed to pull it off, but that comes down to experiance i think. I know this all sounds like bashing, i dont mean it that way, but its just not impressive for me when there is literally only one thing to micro. Just one question: Were there any rosterchanges in the dominant teams in dota2?
Honestly, there is much more depth to ARTS games than you give them credit for. It is not only about "using four skills and kiting". I know you are trying to make a fair assessment, but this is plain wrong. Put the way you put it, any aspect of any game could sound bland and tasteless. For instance, one could say that SC2, as a RTS, is only about keeping a good economy and having good knowledge of army composition. Those two statements are accurate and simple, and yet they hold so much more complexity, as holding a good economy alone requires a great deal of multitasking and macro.
When you are in a team fight of a DotA 2/LoL/HoN game, a lot of stuff is happening. Up to ten heroes can be casting a bunch of spells, and not only do you have to know what each spell does, but you have to closely follow the action in order to know how to react. It is a whole lot to take in within a few seconds, and properly handling a team fight (or any fight for that matter) requires micro, position awareness and most of all quick decision making. One move can sometimes make or break a fight, and you have a very short window of opportunity to decide of said move.
Add to that the fact that it is generally pretty damn hard to find a good coordination in a team of five players, and you have the recipe of complex games. There is so much more to factor than skills and heroes too, for each hero can change the pace of the game - one team could be focusing on pushing or ganking, another on late game... There are a lot of possibilities, and each game has to be handled differently. It also takes great game sense to have a clue of what to do at a given time.
Lastly, ARTS games have a pretty steep learning curse, HoN being the toughest and LoL being the most forgiving. DotA 2 is right in the middle. I think you should try out some games of either or all of these three ARTS and see how hard it is to play correctly, even after a few hundred games. Experience helps you gain knowledge about what to do and stuff, but sheer skill plays a major part.
|
Northern Ireland25736 Posts
My favourite thing is the continual discussion of MOBAs in non-MOBA threads. Really makes TL more fun to browse.
There are things to learn from Riot and Valve to be fair, but equally I'm sure they have been influenced by the success SC2 had (especially initially) as an E-sport
|
On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that.
MVP isn't even Stork lol
|
On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that.
He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time.
I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year.
However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On October 11 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that. He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time. I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year. However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates.
And SC2 is seen as more volatile where the superior player doesn't have a big enough advantage to be consistently dominant, a point also brought up frequently.
Both statements seem to contradict each other as to whether it is more difficult (difficult in different ways, one mechanically and one, I suppose, because of a smaller skill margin) in either game.
Or, you know, maybe they are both legitimate accomplishments for different reasons.
|
On October 11 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that. He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time. I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year. However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates.
Yup, and I am not making any point about which game is more difficult. For all i know, BW could be the most difficult game ever played and no game ever to come will be close to as hard and Flash will go down as the greatest competitor that ever lived in the history of mankind.
+ Show Spoiler + I never played it so how would I know?
The point I wanted to make (by stating fact and thank you for posting the qualifiers for that), is that claims about there being more consistency in BW because one Champion or Bonjwa or whatever can reign for longer is simply not true. There could be a hundred reasons why BW is harder or better than SC2, pretty much I don't care at all. But when someone comes around making those exaggerated statements it really just seems like you're not thinking clearly through your nostalgia.
|
On October 11 2013 12:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
My favourite thing is the continual discussion of MOBAs in non-MOBA threads. Really makes TL more fun to browse.
There are things to learn from Riot and Valve to be fair, but equally I'm sure they have been influenced by the success SC2 had (especially initially) as an E-sport
At about 15:20 into this interview + Show Spoiler + Slasher asks Erik Johnson "Do you look at other companies like Riot and Blizzard and what they are doing with esports?"
Answer: "We really honestly don't"
I am inclined to believe him.
On topic:
SC2 just lacks that "special something", the "soul" or "lighting in a bottle" whatever you want to call it, that games that stick around competitively for 10+ years have. I don't know what it is or how to get it, maybe the OP has the right idea but what I do know is that SC2 lacks it.
|
I think LotV multiplayer will be free to play. It kind of has to. At least unranked without achievements or something like that. And things like the real ladder, the campaign, name changes or even free smurf accounts cost money.
If we want that we should hope that the new C&C is a success financially because it looks like Blizzard don´t take "small" companies like Riot or Valve serious.
|
On October 11 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 05:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:54 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 02:25 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
[quote]
Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces.
TicTacToe only pls Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play. I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory. Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy. I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that. Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex. The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity. Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit. It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others. In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games. I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS! But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take. Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier... But even then. It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc... But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
yeah.. poker has a much bigger crowd than SC2 and takes no execution whatsoever lol
|
On October 11 2013 14:55 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 05:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:54 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory. Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy. I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that. Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex. The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity. Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit. It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others. In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games. I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS! But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take. Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier... But even then. It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc... But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch. yeah.. poker has a much bigger crowd than SC2 and takes no execution whatsoever lol
Turning over them cards can be a bitch at times. It is a mechanically very straining game. 
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On October 11 2013 15:24 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 14:55 ROOTFayth wrote:On October 11 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 05:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:54 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 Squat wrote:
[quote]
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy. I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that. Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex. The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity. Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit. It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others. In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games. I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS! But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take. Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier... But even then. It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc... But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch. yeah.. poker has a much bigger crowd than SC2 and takes no execution whatsoever lol Turning over them cards can be a bitch at times. It is a mechanically very straining game.
Papercuts, man
|
On October 11 2013 15:36 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 15:24 Daswollvieh wrote:On October 11 2013 14:55 ROOTFayth wrote:On October 11 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 05:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 11 2013 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:54 Squat wrote:On October 11 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that. Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex. The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity. Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit. It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others. In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games. I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS! But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take. Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier... But even then. It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc... But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch. yeah.. poker has a much bigger crowd than SC2 and takes no execution whatsoever lol Turning over them cards can be a bitch at times. It is a mechanically very straining game. Papercuts, man
need some robot arms to play poker, can't take that big of a risk
|
On October 11 2013 13:49 bombsauce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that. He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time. I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year. However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates. Yup, and I am not making any point about which game is more difficult. For all i know, BW could be the most difficult game ever played and no game ever to come will be close to as hard and Flash will go down as the greatest competitor that ever lived in the history of mankind. + Show Spoiler + I never played it so how would I know? The point I wanted to make (by stating fact and thank you for posting the qualifiers for that), is that claims about there being more consistency in BW because one Champion or Bonjwa or whatever can reign for longer is simply not true. There could be a hundred reasons why BW is harder or better than SC2, pretty much I don't care at all. But when someone comes around making those exaggerated statements it really just seems like you're not thinking clearly through your nostalgia.
That was before the kespa switch though. The competition was bad.
And if you take out Mvp who is there? No one. BW meta game was always pushed by a few individuals at a time that were the best. Anyone can beat anyone in sc2. If you had followed both games you would have noticed the huge difference. In sc2 every one says a bo1 doesn't even count because the game is so volatile...
|
On October 11 2013 16:07 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 13:49 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that. He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time. I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year. However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates. Yup, and I am not making any point about which game is more difficult. For all i know, BW could be the most difficult game ever played and no game ever to come will be close to as hard and Flash will go down as the greatest competitor that ever lived in the history of mankind. + Show Spoiler + I never played it so how would I know? The point I wanted to make (by stating fact and thank you for posting the qualifiers for that), is that claims about there being more consistency in BW because one Champion or Bonjwa or whatever can reign for longer is simply not true. There could be a hundred reasons why BW is harder or better than SC2, pretty much I don't care at all. But when someone comes around making those exaggerated statements it really just seems like you're not thinking clearly through your nostalgia. That was before the kespa switch though. The competition was bad. And if you take out Mvp who is there? No one. BW meta game was always pushed by a few individuals at a time that were the best. Anyone can beat anyone in sc2. If you had followed both games you would have noticed the huge difference. In sc2 every one says a bo1 doesn't even count because the game is so volatile...
That's not even it, there is some kind of hypocrisy of trying to match Flash with MVP. Even SC2 fans admit that watching 2010 and 2011 SC2 play seems weird because you can see how low the general level was. While when Flash got nicknamed God and 5th Bonjwa the BW skill level was at it's peak.
For the same reason no one puts Boxer or even Iloveoov alongside Flash or Jaedong because the competition is different.
Then someone can say but it's not about objective difficulty but relative (compared to other progamers playing at certain time) and i would agree IF everyone played SC2 in 2010. It is kind of diminishing to see Flash dominate BW and MVP being one of sole A-teamers among B-teamers dominate SC2.
Ask yourself how much Starleague contenders BW lost with SC2 switch, the answer is no one or "we don't know". MVP had good run in MSL (and taking 1 game of Flash) before SC2 and look, he became the biggest SC2 player ever. What a suprise.
|
On October 11 2013 16:21 DinoToss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 16:07 Elroi wrote:On October 11 2013 13:49 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 12:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 11 2013 11:41 thepuppyassassin wrote:On October 11 2013 08:08 bombsauce wrote:On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote:
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people! I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point. tl/dr MVP ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up. MVP=/= Flash refute that. He's technically talking about how MVP during his 2 year reign had as a high a winrate as Flash and his ilk and while Flash had to pad his numbers with Proleague, MVP did it all through almost nothing but tournament runs in the highest competition of SC2 at the time. I don't agree with him, but the math of win rates was actually statistically even. Flash had more wins because he'd 4-0 a slumping team in Proleague while MVP got his because there were 6 GSL's a year. However, because BW is seen as more difficult, Flash's win rates are considered more "real" and more "earned" than MVP's win rates. Yup, and I am not making any point about which game is more difficult. For all i know, BW could be the most difficult game ever played and no game ever to come will be close to as hard and Flash will go down as the greatest competitor that ever lived in the history of mankind. + Show Spoiler + I never played it so how would I know? The point I wanted to make (by stating fact and thank you for posting the qualifiers for that), is that claims about there being more consistency in BW because one Champion or Bonjwa or whatever can reign for longer is simply not true. There could be a hundred reasons why BW is harder or better than SC2, pretty much I don't care at all. But when someone comes around making those exaggerated statements it really just seems like you're not thinking clearly through your nostalgia. That was before the kespa switch though. The competition was bad. And if you take out Mvp who is there? No one. BW meta game was always pushed by a few individuals at a time that were the best. Anyone can beat anyone in sc2. If you had followed both games you would have noticed the huge difference. In sc2 every one says a bo1 doesn't even count because the game is so volatile... That's not even it, there is some kind of hypocrisy of trying to match Flash with MVP. Even SC2 fans admit that watching 2010 and 2011 SC2 play seems weird because you can see how low the general level was. While when Flash got nicknamed God and 5th Bonjwa the BW skill level was at it's peak. For the same reason no one puts Boxer or even Iloveoov alongside Flash or Jaedong because the competition is different. Then someone can say but it's not about objective difficulty but relative (compared to other progamers playing at certain time) and i would agree IF everyone played SC2 in 2010. It is kind of diminishing to see Flash dominate BW and MVP being one of sole A-teamers among B-teamers dominate SC2. Ask yourself how much Starleague contenders BW lost with SC2 switch, the answer is no one or "we don't know". MVP had good run in MSL (and taking 1 game of Flash) before SC2 and look, he became the biggest SC2 player ever. What a suprise.
You guys keep getting so hung up.. I was ridiculously clear. I am not making any claim whatsoever about who deserves more credit, who had the harder track, who deserves to be called Bonjwa... who even cares?
The point im making is that for 2 of the 3 years of SC2, one guy pretty much dominated the whole thing. You're points are irrelevant to the fact that SC2 has shown plenty of stability in terms of scene domination and power players. Even aside from MVP there are plenty of people that have been around from the beginning and still are expected to land top 8 in anything they do.
Yes, it's a young game. Yes, we haven't seen the fully rounded dominating playstyle from a 10 year legacy of metagame. But that doesn't matter at all when you are looking at claims that BW showed more consistency in it's dominant cast.
Please stop making these propaganda claims.
|
Btw, I think a huge problem for SC2 was the Kespa switch and how it was timed.
Had they switched (much) earlier, they would have brought a lot of fans with them.
Hadn't they switched at all, the scene would not be so oversaturated with Korean players/teams.
The way they did it, they kicked a lot of old SC2 Pros out of the scene, while not promoting SC2 (it was out there already for a long time), nor reaching the top. So now we have a bunch of old SC2 fans that are unhappy about a lot of "their stars" not being amongst the very best anymore, and a lot of BW fans that are unhappy about a lot of "their stars" not making it amongst the best.
Meanwhile, when Boxer, NaDa, July played GSL in 2010/2011, there was noone else they "kicked out" and people admired them for their SC2 play.
|
During the last 9 GSL related tournaments we've had 16 different finalists out of possible 18. After the current tournament it'll be 18 out of 20. After 2011 MvP is the only player able to make it to multiple finals.
The three players with multiple championships are MvP, Nestea and MC. All of them had their first championships by the season 4, early on in 2011 and only MvP has won GSL since July 2011.
Regardless of what MvP was in his prime, the present situation isn't looking nice at all.
|
On October 11 2013 14:44 USvBleakill wrote:
I think LotV multiplayer will be free to play. It kind of has to. At least unranked without achievements or something like that. And things like the real ladder, the campaign, name changes or even free smurf accounts cost money.
If we want that we should hope that the new C&C is a success financially because it looks like Blizzard don´t take "small" companies like Riot or Valve serious.
I agree too.
There was this idea I read from somewhere which is pretty good.
Free multiplayer
limitations:
certain amount of ladder games and arcade games per day.
I think this way it can kinda work. help the beginners to try out new races, able to ladder properly, and just grind it out if they enjoy the game.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
On October 11 2013 18:03 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 14:44 USvBleakill wrote:
I think LotV multiplayer will be free to play. It kind of has to. At least unranked without achievements or something like that. And things like the real ladder, the campaign, name changes or even free smurf accounts cost money.
If we want that we should hope that the new C&C is a success financially because it looks like Blizzard don´t take "small" companies like Riot or Valve serious. I agree too. There was this idea I read from somewhere which is pretty good. Free multiplayer limitations: certain amount of ladder games and arcade games per day. I think this way it can kinda work. help the beginners to try out new races, able to ladder properly, and just grind it out if they enjoy the game.
I really like this idea. Did anyone post a link to this thread on us.Battle.net forums?
|
On October 11 2013 18:23 wishr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 18:03 ETisME wrote:On October 11 2013 14:44 USvBleakill wrote:
I think LotV multiplayer will be free to play. It kind of has to. At least unranked without achievements or something like that. And things like the real ladder, the campaign, name changes or even free smurf accounts cost money.
If we want that we should hope that the new C&C is a success financially because it looks like Blizzard don´t take "small" companies like Riot or Valve serious. I agree too. There was this idea I read from somewhere which is pretty good. Free multiplayer limitations: certain amount of ladder games and arcade games per day. I think this way it can kinda work. help the beginners to try out new races, able to ladder properly, and just grind it out if they enjoy the game. I really like this idea. Did anyone post a link to this thread on us.Battle.net forums?
If Blizzard cares about the worries the community has, they would read this thread on TL. If not they wouldn't care about their own forums. Any usual company would die for a moderated forum with 60 pages of worries for free.
And i am pretty sure they have ideas like that by themselves. It´s not that hard to give a team a week or so to make a research of the free to play market and come up with some potential ideas.
In the end its not a "is it possible", its a "does blizzard wants that". I have a feeling that they are more the type of "its a AAA game and we are the best of the best so it should cost money to play our perfect games".
It´s kinda the same with wow, were almost everyone argues that the ftp modell would help the game (in the west, as far as i know most of Asia is ftp anyway) but Blizzard just don't like it without too much of reason behind it.
As much as i liked the "SC2 splitting in 3 episodes" in the beginning i think it hurts now because it makes them inflexible in terms of their selling concept. ala "the other 2 costed 50 bucks so the 3 has to too".
Maybe they look at Heartstone and how it goes with this free to play concept and start to set up a shop for all their (ftp) games to create synergies like "buy new SC2 skins and get 3 unique Heartsone cards" or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
