There will be no point to a matchmaking system if we have no players.
Starbow - Page 163
Forum Index > SC2 General |
WarpTV
205 Posts
There will be no point to a matchmaking system if we have no players. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23673 Posts
| ||
RDaneelOlivaw
Vatican City State733 Posts
On February 07 2014 06:26 Xiphias wrote: Not much to show, but I can tell a bit. Basic website stuff is pretty much done (just some UI brush up). The ladder is taking a tad more time. I am really hoping it can be up by next week, but it might be the week after. Also, we have not tested it yet (not 100% ready for testing yet) and if we test and find huge flaws then it might be pushed back even further. But, I am positive, it should not be long now. Also, more good news are about to come :D Important to remember that I am personally not doing much on this as I am completely incompetent, just trying to organize everyone who are kindly and freely giving of their time. A lot of people want to see this happen :D Is it possible to volunteer to help w stuff like this for Starbow? I'm a professional developer, would love to help out if I can | ||
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On February 07 2014 07:23 WarpTV wrote: 24 Unit select is a very bad Ideal. Skilled players will still play as good as they do now. But they will have no one to play against. Currently Starbow has 40 to 60 people in chat at any one time. And half of them are casual players. A change such as removing smart casting or limiting selection will cut our player base. It all ready can take 10 minutes to find a match. I would hate to see that clime. There will be no point to a matchmaking system if we have no players. You can just ask your opponent to play at a more leisurely pace. If I play chess against my brother I play more quickly and more risky to give him more of a chance. I think it can be applicable to Starbow. | ||
Doominator10
United States515 Posts
On February 07 2014 06:14 Grumbels wrote: I think it's a bit unfair to single out unit selection. Starcraft has a lot of different mechanics that limit the player, each with advantages its own advantages to being in the game. For example, managing supply is mechanically taxing and sometimes limits your ability to produce from your production facility. It's a resource that's not very fun. However, if you are replenishing units after losing them it's less expensive than creating new units because of the supply tax. This promotes comebacks. The supply limit puts a cap on army sizes, but it's obviously necessary to have in the game not only to protect your graphics card, but also to prevent situations where you have a thousand supply of ravens. You can have a similar analysis for other mechanics, I gave one for the unit selection limit before. There are less obvious ones such as map size and unit mobility. The key point is that you can evaluate how much a certain limitation can contribute to the game and weigh this with the fact that it is a limitation on the game, which in a sense is not desirable. It's about finding the right balance which is the most fun to play. I mean, chess is a game with a restricted board size, restricted mobility, restricted moves per turn, restricted time controls, yet nobody complains that these are artificial limitations on the game, it's simply part of the design. If you start to single out limited unit selection and problematize it as an artificial limitation then I would question your perspective. The only test is whether the mechanic ends up being fun to play, and I have my suspicions that all those prophecizing doom might end up reconsidering if they would give it an honest chance. Or not, but we could at least test it. + Show Spoiler + someone called? Mind you that many of these mechanics are intentionally in the game, they are not there by chance but because Blizzard (in designing Brood War) felt that they improved the game. Do you think that they had technical limitations that prevented them from implementing automine, mbs, smartcast and unlimited selection? I can understand the argument for the pathfinding, but the other things I mentioned are trivial to implement, (and in fact would often already exist in other games that had come out at the time), yet Blizzard still neglected to add them. It is on record that the unit selection limit was added in Warcraft 2 to make army movement more strategical. And for other mechanics, even ones such as supply, they might exist in other games before and maybe Blizzard didn't specifically predict the effects they would have, but it doesn't matter. We can still imitate aspects of games that worked out well, even if they weren't designed for the purpose they ended up serving. Also, I want Starbow to obey the rules of time&space, which is to say that everything that exists in the game should take up space and every action you take in the game should require some amount of your attention, but it should be relative to space. I don't want manual-rally in the game, but for argument's sake: if you have more bases you need to spend more attention to further increasing your income. For limited selection there is a similar argument: more units equals more attention to controlling them. I think this is a neat theory and creates a natural balance for the game where the person that is behind is always boosted a little bit by virtue of having less "space" and therefore the ability to be more luxurious with "time", furthermore it also adds natural limitations to everything that keep the game in proper scale. Just like how chess functions best on a specific board size, Starcraft functions best within certain supply limits, map sizes and game lengths. These words are so pretty, oooo aahh. I can only say that I have played on SCBW (after sc2 and only the campaign for lore purposes) and SC2BW (when goaded to try it). -1 to limited unit selection. There iare already a lot of things that discourage having massive control groups, no need to place additional restrictions. (40 mutas in a ball? Meet 4 archons and an irradiate. 80 marine medic in a ball? Meet 3 lurkers and 2 scourge on a ramp > ![]() ![]() | ||
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
On February 07 2014 06:54 Wombat_NI wrote: I find what the mechanical side of things do is add to the feeling of 'intensity' that I quite enjoy. Even if you get a pretty sizeable advantage in Sbow, I haven't yet got the experience I have in SC2 which is 'oh well I can coast for the next 10 minutes, I've pretty much won'. You still have to macro properly and control well, it doesn't seem to snowball as much as SC2 does. As it stands I find Sbow is actually doing a pretty good job without implementing selection limits, namely that you benefit from having multiple control units over those who 1A their whole armies. I'm not against a cap though, but it wouldn't be top of the list of priorities for me. Yeah, in response to this I'd say I'm not really sure if limited unit selection will add to the strategic diversity of the game, I'm just saying that it's (in my opinion at least) better to make the core mechanics allow for strategic diversity with as much variation as possible in units and map design, rather than keeping core mechanics which only allow for rigidly designed units and maps. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On February 06 2014 20:17 Grumbels wrote: It's a strategy game. Sitting in your base, building up an army and attack-moving with your one giant army is what gameplay looks like for the majority of players. What's fun about that? It's just a simulation game at that point. You should want to encourage players to play strategically, with an emphasis on positioning and skirmishes all over the map. Limited selection doesn't stop you from deathballing anyway, but it does have various advantages that I suspect might improve gameplay overall. Improving gameplay aka making the game more fun to play for everyone, including casuals. Excuse me but I dont see any correlation whatsoever. A group limit makes big army harder to control. Ok. But why would you feel pressed to be more aggressive because of it? Isn't your opponent supposed to experience the same problem? And how casuals will benefit from it is totally beyond me. | ||
nukkuj
Finland403 Posts
This one looks pretty good! | ||
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
ESL Starbow cup #9 begins tonight at 19:00 CET. It is in the event calender on the sidebar. It says that Mandal and Rider Rockon will be streaming, but I am not 100% sure if that is correct. I will also stream the event, but I'll probably jump in later. My stream is: www.twitch.tv/SC2_Starbow, but I'll add it to the event when I go online. Brackets will show up here: http://beta.esl.eu/eu/sc2/starbow/ once registration is closed. Also, only 12 members so far ![]() Honor and much Starbow glory awaits the winner! (Also ESL points) @ Unit limit selection I we have heard both sides of the arguments and unless you have something new to bring to the table I suggest we end the discussion about it. This is mostly since it is currently out of hands anyways. IF we were to implement this, we would need a lot of help from Blizzard and I don't think this is on their current priority list anyways. @ Unit pathing Decemberscalm has been experimenting with a new pathing and there is also the pathing that is being discussed at the Starbow forum over at custom games. We will probably implement some new pathing, probably in a test map at first. @ New Spider mine Decemberscalm is a wizard! | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
bearhug
United States999 Posts
| ||
itsMAHVELbaybee
292 Posts
| ||
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
| ||
Meerel
Germany713 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=418055¤tpage=5 | ||
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1x9r41/acer_innovation_axcrank_and_others_to_join_the/ Upvote please ![]() | ||
bearhug
United States999 Posts
Dallan Christensen, the leading designer of SCBW, once said that those simple rules are what made SC BW a great and stable game. The game is like a ecosystem or a society, in which the physical rules/ human laws are critical for the sustainability & stability of the whole system. Just like a country built based on laws/constitutions is more sustainable than a dictatorships regime where decisions are usually made randomly depending on the ruler's desire. Keep the good work going! | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On February 07 2014 22:38 Meerel wrote: If you guys have map wishes, you can vote here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=418055¤tpage=5 Medusa is a good example of the kind of map that I think would have a role in starbow. | ||
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On February 07 2014 22:58 Grumbels wrote: Medusa is a good example of the kind of map that I think would have a role in starbow. Yeah, Medusa was among better maps in BW imo. I really liked it, and I love the fact that Heartbreak ridge is second on the vote list. ![]() We just need Bluestorm after that and I don't need any more of the maps, I can watch and play the games on those maps forever. :D | ||
GuoJing
France30 Posts
On February 07 2014 22:48 Xiphias wrote: Innovation to play in the Starbow invitational: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1x9r41/acer_innovation_axcrank_and_others_to_join_the/ Upvote please ![]() I am not that excited. Why ? Because most of those players mainly play SC2 HOTS and not Starbow. This tournament should invite players who did good results in ESL starbow cups (finalists, semi...), even if they are not known as progamers. I am pretty sure this will happen : Player A :"oh, didnt know it was like that", Player B "lol, me neither" | ||
| ||