|
Hello TeamLiquid, my name is Mhax and my english is not brilliant but I'll do my best in order to summarize my thoughts on how to improve SC2 and create a better atmosphera when laddering.
Today I was discussing with a friend about why and how LoL "gets you" to play it. We started to analyze it and the first thing we realized (from a solo RTS perspective) is that the more you play, the better your champions are. And the better they are, the more you can win and it just snowballs from it. Of course you just cannot do that in a game which balance sensibility is so thin. However, the concept can still be used to make SC2 a more exiting game to play.
Why LoL players start playing knowing that they don't automatically have all the runes and stuff??? Well, they don't really need to know the ENTIRE GAME mechanics in order to success in the firsts levels of training. I think it would be confusing and you won't necessary learn as much as you should if every feature in the game is immediately revealed.
Now, going back to SC2 and in most RTS, why we all play the campaign knowing that our real purpose is to get to the 1# GM?. Well, the campaign just have the exact same mechanic of gaming that it is humanly designed... you start with little to no tech, the more you play.. the more you win.. the more you win.. the more you know .. And it just keep snowballing from there (You don't finish SC2 campaign in 3 months....).
Now lets go to a completely different topic: System leveling in Starcraft II. It just doesn't have any sense. You're not forced to play to "level up". Why? Because it gives you no benefits. The more you play, the more levels you get (There're no more consecuences), there're no guarantees that the more levels you get, the better you are.
However, this is where SC2 lacks of gameplay and gameplan design. You can level up all the way up by doing standard macro builds or just 11/11 ing the bronce to grandmaster league.
The staircase:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374400
The staircase mehtod, an alternate method to improve your starcraft II skill it is designed for every single new person to the game in order to understand it gradually. It is supposed to work this way: You do this until you master it --> Then you can now do that and this new (The more you play --> The better you are --> the more you learn --> the more you win) AND it keeps snowballing from there.
However, given that The Staircase in an alternate method, you're not forced to accept the challenge and newcomers players to SC2 would not even know this exists.
Now (and i know you've all got the point right now) What if we "force" players to accept the Staircase challenge the moment they get involved into starcraft II. Lets say... Before being placed in leagues (bronce-silver-gold...), or even in the same league system, you must level yourself all the way up by gradually learning new units and strategies that support them. (The exact Staircase pattern). Lets say that a level 1 terran only has scv and barracks... The more they play.. the more they'll understand how the unit works... the more they will start to win. In level 2 they unlock the orbital command... and so on... So you'll be forced to play (it makes it humanly more addictive, ask drogadicts or students or whoever: The more you do this --> The more you understand it --> The more you..)
And if you think all of this would be a "waste of time".. Ask yourself the question.. ¿Why we play the campaign and why LoL players start playing knowing that they're "behind." ?
Cheers =)!.
|
i dont know if clans exist in SC2 (or even if you have chat channels yet) , but in BW a lot of people "levelled up" by challenging clan friends
|
I'd rather they just have in game tournaments and leagues and clan wars which would give people a reason to try and learn to be better. I also know this is Blizzard and we are basically talking to a wall.
|
On October 29 2013 00:36 FFGenerations wrote:
i dont know if clans exist in SC2 (or even if you have chat channels yet) , but in BW a lot of people "levelled up" by challenging clan friends
We have both in SC2
|
Sorry but I disagree that the "levelling" mechanics of LoL's business model are in any way a good thing.
The fact you don't have equal access to summoner spells from the start, don't have equal access to characters right from the start and don't have equal access to runes and masteries from the start is, I feel, a horrible thing. Its a good business decision from Riot's part (because it makes people pay money) but it is not a good thing for the scene.
In essence its a horribly anti-competitive business model to run with and I seriously feel that if Riot wasn't supporting it in a big way the LoL esports scene wouldn't be a fraction of what it is. Because its an environment that is on its most basic level completely against fair competition compared to something like SC2 where you have access to anything which effects gameplay right from the word go.
TLDR: "Unlocking" gameplay altering stuff in a game makes it anti-competitive by business design. It is an awful thing to design a competitive environment around.
|
I think you make a few to many assumptions. First there are very few who play the campaign to reach 1# GM, most people do it just because it really is a completely different game. I honestly dislike the way LoL does it. Both the way you don't get all heroes and the way that runes and talents outside of every game gives such a huge benefit and is necessary, I dislike how they have a ladder that you only get to play after a few months of grinding to level 30 (or days depending on how much you play). Some people like it I'm sure.
But honestly in that case dota 2 does it better. You get some Battle points every game, when you get 100 you level up and get some cosmetic item. you don't HAVE to grind the runes and shit to play competitive. But you get some kind of a reward every game you play so you satisfy that urge as well.
Bottom line is. I doubt that forcing people to play a scaled back game will do much good for starcraft.
Oh yeah another thing that I forgot to mention. The way everything (units buildings and so on) melts together in starcraft is a lot different then how runes and levels work in lol. 5 Levels and runes makes a small difference, but 2 building missing in stacraft? That can be game over right there.
|
I don't know if forcing the staircase method is the best way to encourage people to keep practicing. I do agree that we need some sort of a smaller scale reward system that gives some incentive to play. Right now, all we have is some portraits and a few skins.
|
i would never play sc2 if it worked the way OP suggests. it is the main reason i dont even consider playing lol.
i hate when people force me into what they think is good for me. the thing i love about sc2 is my absolute freedom in how i play.
what you suggest is gaming version of extreme left: the authority decides what is best for the peasants. i hate leftists.
|
Lol's model is to make money, nothing else.
|
I do not like it from a high level balance perspective. As someone who is high level LoL, I still do not have all the options I care to have and do not even own every champion (just most of the relevant ones).
Early on, during the leveling phase, the balance between levels is extremely lopsided to experienced players. Levels 1-20 took, maybe, 1 month of casual play (1-2 games every few days, iirc) while the same schedule from 20-30 would require 4-5 months of play. For those people who are matchmade as true newbies in levels 1-20, they won't be able to use runes or summoner spells to the potential of high level players who have played the game for hundreds to thousands of games. The champion unlocking balance was fine, though there exists problems with champions who are too strong always and also those deemed "weak". At low enough level of play, everything is viable. During the leveling process as a newbie, I wouldn't miss my options until much later, when I unlocked them for hundreds of games and rely on them as tools to get "high level plays" done.
Level 30, I feel the atrocity of those who can dump money in to get all their pre-game options with no time commitment. This is meh...and LoL is free to play. This is a bad mechanic, but won't affect competitive play harshly, especially considering "high level" competitive play, where they dump enough time in to unlock these things natively.
Sc2 could use some "unlocking" process, I think, to make progress to newbies feel meaningful but not to constrain them. Training mode is an emulation of playing the game against others. Maybe requiring enough AI games, masked as a mini campaign, to familiarize yourself with all the units and upgrades possible and fundamental concepts like expansion, making workers, etc would work better. Each new mission would drop you in a melee but ask you to do specific things and guide you on how to do them in a more competitive mindset than the campaign asks of you. Maybe 15 games, but that may be a bit much, would do the trick. After that, it is hard to look at sc2 and say "We can restrict X" the way a MOBA can, since there is a lot more that goes into each game that won't be used (specific heros, specific items, etc).
|
I don't even understand what the OP is talking about
|
Levels 1-20 took, maybe, 1 month of casual play (1-2 games every few days, iirc) while the same schedule from 20-30 would require 4-5 months of play. For those people who are matchmade as true newbies in levels 1-20, they won't be able to use runes or summoner spells to the potential of high level players who have played the game for hundreds to thousands of games.
Nobody who is good at League is playing against level 12s. If a level 30 is playing against a Level sub-20, then they are either duoing with like a level 5, or they are incredibly awful. Normals have MMR in League.
Level 30, I feel the atrocity of those who can dump money in to get all their pre-game options with no time commitment.
What pre-game options? You can't buy Runes, so what's there to do buy? Champions? I don't think that's got much at all to do with anti-competitiveness.
|
Uh that's what campaign is for
|
So how would you even balance this at all?
|
Having all content available and having a ladder is super duper nice already. If either of Dota having a ladder or LoL having all of it's champions from the start (fine, grind the runes still) was met it would make me really happy. I do not think it would be a good idea to constraint players in such a way, even more so since nothing says you cannot just do it on your own if you so desire 
|
On October 29 2013 01:08 -Celestial- wrote:
Sorry but I disagree that the "levelling" mechanics of LoL's business model are in any way a good thing.
The fact you don't have equal access to summoner spells from the start, don't have equal access to characters right from the start and don't have equal access to runes and masteries from the start is, I feel, a horrible thing. Its a good business decision from Riot's part (because it makes people pay money) but it is not a good thing for the scene.
In essence its a horribly anti-competitive business model to run with and I seriously feel that if Riot wasn't supporting it in a big way the LoL esports scene wouldn't be a fraction of what it is. Because its an environment that is on its most basic level completely against fair competition compared to something like SC2 where you have access to anything which effects gameplay right from the word go.
TLDR: "Unlocking" gameplay altering stuff in a game makes it anti-competitive by business design. It is an awful thing to design a competitive environment around.
+ If you are a newbie, it's most likely that you're gonna get matched against other newbies who don't also don't have access to full summoner spells, runes, champions. So you're on the equal foot.
+ If you're a smurf, then it's a good way to cap you. Games are not and should not be designed to accommodate and encourage smurfing. If you're smurfing, you're essentially cheat the system, so having to play up to level 30 and not having access to a lot of stuff is a way to discourage people to smurf. Games like Special Force also requires you a certain level, such as level 21 to buy sniping rifles, therefore if you're smurfing and want to destroy newbies for fun, you're discouraged by it. Overall this game design choice is not uncommon, and as long as it does it job, that's fine.
+ I also don't like not having access to big pool of champion, but I understand that depends on the regions though. In NA, EU, the business model is different than, say SEA or KR. In Korea, you have access to full pool of champions as long as you play in PCBang, and champ's price are cheap too. In SEA, there're constantly onsale champs, and bonus 50%,100% IP, RP; you can easily get to level 30 will full runes in couple weeks.
|
On October 29 2013 06:40 Shiori wrote:
What pre-game options? You can't buy Runes, so what's there to do buy? Champions? I don't think that's got much at all to do with anti-competitiveness.
First : Rune Pages. I am in Diamond 2, nearly at the top of the ladder. I still only have 5 pages in which I can fill with runes. These pages are expensive (as expensive as most of the new champions, 6300 IP, you'll gain 70-120 IP per match (with a +150 first win bonus). You could, of course, spend some money on these rune pages. The runes themselves are moderately expensive, but in order to optimize your selection you need to have a wide variety of pages at your disposal. I have 1 per role, where my opponents can have as much as 4 per role. At high level play, these runes make a difference and having my hands tied because I have to make generic pages for the roles I may encounter can hamper my game.
Second, Champion pools are pretty important. During the draft of champions, having access to many champions is insanely strong. Champions work as a gradient in their roles, where 4-6 champions represent a subrole (say : Assassins) and those 4-6 champions have different mechanics which may work better with your team/against their team (Say : a single carry assassinator such as Zed or an insanely mobile and high burst champion like Fizz or Kassadin).
I have played the game for 2 years, yet to sink a penny into the game, and only own half the champions, generic runes for each role, and a single page for each role. I play 2-3 matches a day. Having my hands tied because I haven't invested in the new flavor of the month champion is a big deal, due to teamplay elements that begin in the draft phase "Oh man...he doesn't play X or any counters to X". At this point, champions come and go so slowly in the expectations sheet for me that I don't need much time to make my decision on my next IP purchase, but its been years. I was highly constrained by my champion pool a year ago when I got serious about playing LoL. I literally couldn't play 20% of the expected roles per game because of my physical inability to play the champion. I understand Riot wants to make money and this is a good way to do so, but it is very difficult on the player who wants to be serious without investing a lot of time in.
While learning the game, constraint is fine because you learn from a smaller subset of the massive pool. DOTA2 does this with their training, they limit you to 20 champions and then from there say "have at it!".
Past Gold League, these things begin to matter. Silver, Bronze, Unranked, and pre30 have much bigger things that matter than runes and champion constraints. Gold is when team compositions begin to matter and your earlygame (read: Rune dependent portion of the game) will have much more influence on the game than before since people will not throw leads as easily or give the enemy a lead for free.
|
On October 29 2013 01:08 -Celestial- wrote:
TLDR: "Unlocking" gameplay altering stuff in a game makes it anti-competitive by business design. It is an awful thing to design a competitive environment around.
EA tried this unit unlocking model in one of their C&C games and it failed horribly.
|
On October 29 2013 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Lol's model is to make money, nothing else.
name a popular game which has not the model to make money
|
On October 29 2013 18:15 graNite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:23 guN-viCe wrote:
Lol's model is to make money, nothing else. name a popular game which has not the model to make money
There is no wrong with making money. But OP is arguing that the model to restrict content makes the game better, and we disagree.
|
I really dislike the unlocking middle because it gives a favorable lead to the person who invested more time into the game. I think skill should be the deciding factor in winning or losing. Not your level. This is one of the main reasons why I favor Dota2 over LoL. I played LoL casually for 2 months and I was still not able to play ranked while I get burned down by ignites. I play Dota 2, jump into 3-4 games and already won the 5th and 6th. Yes these are low-quality games but matchmaking should is the factor who leads. Not my level and the perks it brings with it.
|
On October 29 2013 07:03 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 01:08 -Celestial- wrote:
Sorry but I disagree that the "levelling" mechanics of LoL's business model are in any way a good thing.
The fact you don't have equal access to summoner spells from the start, don't have equal access to characters right from the start and don't have equal access to runes and masteries from the start is, I feel, a horrible thing. Its a good business decision from Riot's part (because it makes people pay money) but it is not a good thing for the scene.
In essence its a horribly anti-competitive business model to run with and I seriously feel that if Riot wasn't supporting it in a big way the LoL esports scene wouldn't be a fraction of what it is. Because its an environment that is on its most basic level completely against fair competition compared to something like SC2 where you have access to anything which effects gameplay right from the word go.
TLDR: "Unlocking" gameplay altering stuff in a game makes it anti-competitive by business design. It is an awful thing to design a competitive environment around. + If you are a newbie, it's most likely that you're gonna get matched against other newbies who don't also don't have access to full summoner spells, runes, champions. So you're on the equal foot. + If you're a smurf, then it's a good way to cap you. Games are not and should not be designed to accommodate and encourage smurfing. If you're smurfing, you're essentially cheat the system, so having to play up to level 30 and not having access to a lot of stuff is a way to discourage people to smurf. Games like Special Force also requires you a certain level, such as level 21 to buy sniping rifles, therefore if you're smurfing and want to destroy newbies for fun, you're discouraged by it. Overall this game design choice is not uncommon, and as long as it does it job, that's fine. + I also don't like not having access to big pool of champion, but I understand that depends on the regions though. In NA, EU, the business model is different than, say SEA or KR. In Korea, you have access to full pool of champions as long as you play in PCBang, and champ's price are cheap too. In SEA, there're constantly onsale champs, and bonus 50%,100% IP, RP; you can easily get to level 30 will full runes in couple weeks.
- "Everyone is on equal footing" is firstly a terrible, terrible argument to make in favour of restricting gameplay impacting features and secondly is flat out incorrect. Because that'd ONLY be true if everyone had access to the exact same characters and the exact same runes. Which they don't. Because you buy them separately.
- Strawman argument. Nobody said anything about smurfing and if your MMR system is any good then smurfing shouldn't be an issue. If LoL's matchmaking is really THAT bad at rapidly balancing smurfs then I'd suggest they look into fixing it up.
- And that is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of the system the fact is that locking off gameplay altering mechanics and heroes is an awful design for a supposedly competitive game. Its a good business model but it is inherently anti-competitive.
|
The problem with breaking down sc2 into parts is that the game is designed to be played as a whole. For example if you can only build up to tier 1.5 units and play a TvP then you are at a point where the last units you can build are marauders that counter stalkers and you can't build immortals to counter marauders. The only other units the protoss have are zealots that can be kitted easily and sentries that can forcefield ramps forever and the terran can't get medivacs to get vision or lift your units,so it creates a lot of issues... it seems just too hard to implement those kind of things in a game like sc2... I think we will see more of those casual systems in HOS...
|
I don't understand the idea behind the post at all, but I wanted to say to the OP: your english is really damn good, that intro warning wasn't necessary
|
RTS is not the same as MOBA. You are comparing apples and oranges.
|
Why do you need to add incentives? The game is fun or it isn't. Gimmicks do not solve this problem.
|
On October 29 2013 06:41 mizU wrote:
Uh that's what campaign is for
This isn't true. You can only play as Terran in the original game. Most of the campaign units are different from their multiplayer counterparts. The mechanics aren't the same as well. Thus playing through the campaign to get a gist of how the multiplayer works is ineffective.
In BW it worked pretty well though. Players were slowly introduced to the units and missions were designed around utilizing the newly acquired units. Also special units (heroes) were usually just a bit stronger and sometimes had an ability from some other unit, it wasn't really a brand new unit.
|
A lot of people are taking this at face value and arguing about whether or not we need it. I say, why not? It wouldn't hurt. Besides, who says that the sc2 client has to provide this? Why not create some kind of 3rd party app/web app that gets data about your matches from the replay files and determines whether or not you followed the staircase method or what have you. If you do, you "level up" on the app. Such a thing can be used with ggtracker to provide additional analysis. In fact, I think the staircase method is integrated with ggtracker to a degree, but I never did figure out exactly how to use it.
|
SC2 already has a reward system in place with the portraits, decals and dances. They just need flesh this out to add more of these and other interesting things to encourage play again. Bump up the level max and add things like new skins, graphics, sounds, maps, achievements, colors, even music. People will play to unlock these things.
These rewards need not to affect gameplay at all, and I think this is the right approach.
|
I think you have a great idea with this thread. I wonder if we could make a staircase mod that does the same thing...
|
"How to get people to play "
Well perhaps Star 2 is infinity times more expensive?
|
Interesting idea. The multiplayer training tool that was introduced in HotS has some of what you are talking about. I'm seeting lots of renewed interest in The Staircase recently. I'm going to see if I can use it to break my try-hard, silver-for-life status
I agree that 'locking' certain aspects of multiplayer and perfecting the basics is the right way to improve. The idea of tying this to improvements is interesting but tough to implement. Skins, dances, decals etc are good. What about a free, limited pass to view paywalled VODS (like GSL) tied to these achievements? They could be very motivating for players, plus serve as publicity for the folks who run the paywalls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
