EPTI'd make a comment on the video itself, but me and Google+ don't get along.
Khaldor's thoughts about the future of RTS - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
I'd make a comment on the video itself, but me and Google+ don't get along. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 16 2014 21:52 Belisarius wrote: I dunno, I feel like it's as simple as variety. RTS games tend to settle on a particular set of units and/or strategies which are viable for each MU. Sure, there's a huge amount of variation in subtle timings and a vast depth of skill in that, but to a casual observer it's just MMM running into supported gateway over and over. The mobas have the advantage of having a million different heroes. Even if many of those heroes are never seen in competitive play, the draft system still creates changes from game to game that are immediately apparent, even if you know nothing about what's going on. I feel like you are not talking about RTS here but about Starcraft. Starcraft suffers from having three, very asymetrical races, so it is very hard to design/balance units that find broad usage in multiple matchups. Instead there are a lot of units/playstyles that are required, because they are the only ones that can deal with what your opponent is doing. Other playstyles being simply not balanced for the particular situation in that matchup and cannot easily get balanced for that, since it would break situations in other matchups. Additionally, Starcraft is a game that is a lot about limiting your opponent instead of using your options. This is due to how punishing it is to lose something (a base, a part of your army...). Killing a natural early immidiatly results in a loss, because a base = 50% of your income. Which is Starcrafts gamedesign, but not a universal feature of RTS games that you have so few points you can harvest from early or that those are all as important as you starting area. | ||
|
Bosscelot
United Kingdom52 Posts
Really though I think the reason Dota and LoL are more popular as spectator esports isn't to do with this stuff; it's just because they are fundamentally easier to play and as such have far bigger playerbases (not a slight against them; I don't watch or play SC2 anymore, Dota 2 all the way baby). Dota has 7.2 million unique players and right now 770k are playing it; how many does SC2 have? | ||
|
VArsovskiSC
Macedonia563 Posts
Like - minute 2 in ally chat - omg Lina is taking my farm.. I was like w.t.f. dude, who said the farm is yours ?? He reponds - you're a support, you should let me farm/kill/whatever.. I'm like - you have a rule-book for everything going on don't you ?? ofc. i'm pretty damn good at it and even healing others during fights going on, but really - the other guy might have a point  I really can't quite understand the "carry/support/jungler/whatever" concept in playing the game cause I usually have over 10 kills in a game as a support hero, usually.. And in those games that we lose I get blamed for not letting the "carry" guy get strong enough, i.e. - because of I was stealing kills.. ======================================= What I wanted to say is - when someone says - this hero, lvl3 woods, lvl5 rosh, I'm like - w.t.f. - why can't he gank or sth like that ?? It's like as if everything is "set in stone".. well - don't know those values ======================================= In SC2 is actually easier - 2 armies fighting each-other, but the problem is --> not enough "special" moves, or hard to make ones in it.. Not saying that laying down good Force-fields and making a good concave isn't hard enough, but true that the viewership won't get excited for it.. In BW for example there were Reaver-drops, sick Storms, Lockdowns, e.t.c. - people appreciated it far more cause they really knew how hard it is to make it.. AND - it was easier to "bring" to the crowd cause those were the "focal point".. AND not only that - the fights could often be more "dispersive" rather than everything happen at one place already The battle however in SC2 is far easier to implement, to that point that the average players are convinced that they could do the same if they were in the place (except the splitting and kiting maybe), well - there's no doubt that they're trolling, even catching sometimes myself doing it.. And YET --> they happen too fast anyway that everything is done in like less than 10 sec already.. I for example - (cause you asked in the VoD as a specific question) --> here's what I usually get hyped most about in SC2 - the SICK HOLDS.. That's it..  That's like maybe 35% of why I even watch the games.. Other than keeping up with the meta and following good players, and therefore maybe keeping the "rights" to further trolling.. But yah - like - the sick holds that can happen are maybe the biggest part of why I get excited.. Especially when a player you like, or you were rooting for does it.. And if it happens in a F vs SK scenario - it's even better and even more exciting Still - like you said - other than the SICK HOLDS (yes, again all-capping it cause they're the best moments by far in the game) - I guess it indeed is a true "story" that the "reality" happens in the production tab, or the supply difference - mostly.. ======================================= And b.t.w. - those "simultaneous drops" and "managing many things at once" - those aren't Macro, those are Multitasking.. Those are really hard to even notice unless watching the game itself from a minimap-point-of-view, i.e. - being an observer/caster silently in yourself (despite there being an official caster on the stream already) usually | ||
|
garlicface
Canada4196 Posts
tl;dr Popularity of LoL > Dota 2 > SC2 correlates to the amount of learning vs. practice in the games. You can learn LoL just by playing and you will feel yourself improve. In SC2, learning just isn't enough, and feeling like you have to practice in order to improve can feel like a burden. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On February 16 2014 16:41 Khaldor wrote: EDIT 2: after reading more of the comments I have to highlight again that my main point is not about RTS vs. MOBAs. The comparison comes to mind easily because of the nature of the discussion. But the main point is the micro vs. macro aspect and how to get people EXCITED about what's happening and also why it's easier to be passionated about a game with a strong micro focus. Maybe one could add that to the opening post as well I've added the link to the video, as well as the paragraph you added in your second edit. | ||
|
Gotard
Poland446 Posts
| ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:39 Khaldor wrote: That was not the reason. One of the biggest reasons was how the internet infrastructure improved in the years before WarCraft3 was released. That's something people tend to forget completely. BW didn't create an Esports infrastructe in Europe, we did that with WarCraft 3. Creating regular tournaments, big leagues and regular broadcasts that became more and more popular over time. Back then it was also all audio. There was no bandwith etc. for videostreams a the beginning of WarCraft3. That came a few years later and had it's breakthrough then with StarCraft 2. Off-topic: I most definitely remember that time. Back when the e-sport scene (and e-sport coverage scene) of WC3 was beginning to develop, the only broadcasting means were WaaaaaghTV (yeah!) and "web radios". Basically, it was your poor man's Twitch, seeing as players would watch the game on WTV while listening to the shoutcaster. WC3 definitely missed the opportunity to benefit from live streams, which is a shame. Other factors were in play regarding the development of e-sports though. The two main games featured on ESL were WC3 and CS 1.6. Those two games definitely paved the way for e-sports in Europe, and a lot of tournaments and events were created at the time. E-sport was shaping up to be a real thing, and I think its development is very satisfying now. LoL, DotA 2 and SC2 have greatly enhanced the scene, which is something to be happy about. On-topic: I personally think SC2 isn't very enjoyable to watch, mostly because there isn't enough action. WC3 made up for that with creeping, which also somewhat transferred to MOBA games through the laning phase. I think SC2 is still very successful though. It's just that DotA 2 and LoL are absolutely huge. SC2 is the sole representative of RTS games on a competitive level, and we should be thankful for that. The differences between macro and micro are distinct, but as some people have said in this topic, some prefer it that way. Though it is bound to attract less players, which is something the community should live with. There is no competing with different genres. I wouldn't argue that MOBA games are simpler than SC2. In truth, DotA 2's learning curve is very steep - you have to know what the heroes do, you have to know their spells, you have to know the items, etc. There are many factors that come into play. SC2 and RTS games, as you say in your video, are actually more straightforward, mostly because the items don't matter and you have a lot less heroes. Nonetheless, most people choose to stick to MOBAs once they discover them, because they are entertaining. SC2 becomes easier to watch when you acquire the basics. You know what happens and you can tell the moves and stuff. If you only have the basics, you're not going to grasp all the details of one game, but you'll definitely be aware of what happens. MOBAs are a little different, as a game has 10 players with 10 heroes, you typically need to know more to follow what happens. Overall, I think that thanks to the high popularity of MOBAs, a game like WC3 would be more easily understood by the casual viewer now, since the concept of heroes isn't all that new anymore (which it was when WC3 was introduced, thus explaining why people were having troubles following the games - the concept of a hero-based RTS was entirely new, but now with MOBAs... I think people would get used to it very quickly). It's also true that a lot of RTS players switched over to MOBAs, a trend that begun under WC3 itself as DotA was gathering more players than the actual game. WC3 itself lasted a solid 8 years or so before the professional scene really started to fade, so I don't think DotA "killed" WC3, it simply created an alternative for other players. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On February 16 2014 21:13 Sapphire.lux wrote: So you can say that you want or wanted more a Warcraft game rather then a Starcraft. Thats not at all what he were saying. Improvisation in micro and builds is what he want. What has that to do with warcraft? Like right now, you have to train some builds alot to get them right or else u have no chance. You have your timings - Either offense or defense. You have your timing - Expansion, tech, units. Improvisation. God i would love an RTS that doesnt have builds or timings. | ||
|
rasers
Sweden691 Posts
On February 16 2014 16:41 Khaldor wrote: EDIT 2: after reading more of the comments I have to highlight again that my main point is not about RTS vs. MOBAs. The comparison comes to mind easily because of the nature of the discussion. But the main point is the micro vs. macro aspect and how to get people EXCITED about what's happening and also why it's easier to be passionated about a game with a strong micro focus. Maybe one could add that to the opening post as well You can make people excited about macro. just have to know how. | ||
|
Yezzus
United States2318 Posts
| ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
All these posts are giving me ideas about alternate ways sc2 could have gone, but I can't make them because I only have WoL, and can't use the HotS dependencies for mapmaking  | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
You're someone who undoubtedly was very familiar with WC3, but (correct me if I'm totally wrong) don't seem as familiar with BW. I say this because, personally, I hold the belief that SC2 is closer to WC3 than it is to BW in terms of game flow and in its emphasis of micro versus macro. To clarify what I mean: the amount of time you spend in SC2 controlling and moving your army about versus doing actual base/macro management makes SC2 a closer relative to WC3 than it ever was of BW. If, in BW, you spent as much time staring at your army as you do in these games you'd be floating 5k minerals already in the midgame. Classifying SC2 as a macro heavy/focused game is just buying into the propaganda surrounding the game ever since its unveiling. Macro <- - - BW - - - - - - - | - SC2 - - - - - WC3 - - -> Micro Anyway. With that said: I don't disagree with you about a hero focused RTS being more intuitive to understand if it's a micro focused game. I just think that SC2 has always had something of a split identy disorder. It tries hard to portray itself as a macroesque swarmy game, even marketing itself as thus, but in reality it's really more about army control/movement/harass/drops. Your prowess with the aforementioned army control methods then creates the illusion of there being differences in macro performance between players. In reality, all pro players in SC2 can achieve near perfect macro and pretty much always are achieving near perfect macro relative to and depending on the choices they make in a game. What I mean more specifically with that statement: It's not the difficulty of macro itself in SC2 that accounts for economy differences, but rather the imperfect choices players make in relation to safe/greedy play and in relation to their micro performance (losing workers to drops). This is very different from BW where the difficulty of perfect base/macro management itself accounted for meaningful performance differences between players. In SC2, it may look like one player has significantly better macro, but really it's mostly because of and a result of decision making. The player with a lesser economy in an an SC2 game is rarely at that economy disadvantage because they macroed imperfectly, but rather because they made the decision to play too safe. They still had near perfect macro relative to their chosen safe play. So to tie back into why I agree with you in regards to a hero based RTS being more intuitive when it comes to WC3 vs SC2: because SC2 is mostly about army movement & control. All players in SC2 macro near perfectly relative to their decision making in a given game. If you have 2 micro based competitive games where doing stuff with your army is what will differentiate you from an opponent: then yes, the hero based approach makes more sense. Creates something to care about in the fights. A hero in a way is a third resource, as the xp system gives incentives to attack and gives feedback as to the success/progress made. Maybe I give off the impression of overstating the differences between BW and SC2. But I really personally do hold this belief that SC2 is a BW-WC3-hybrid rather than a BW successor. BW was a game where you managed bases full time and intermittently checked in on your army. In SC2, conversely, you manage your army full time and intermittently check in on your bases. The later into a game you get the more true this SC2 vs BW split becomes. In that sense, and from that perspective, I would agree a hero design would benefit something like SC2 (which is not a macro game in the truest sense). In thinking and arguing SC2 is a macro based game you're, in my opinion, misrepresenting what a real macro esports RTS title would look and behave like. It wouldn't be one where people stare and micromanage their armies with the level of obsession that they do in SC2. A macro based RTS by my definition is one where there's simply not enough time to both manage bases/economy and to micro an army. In a macro based RTS you are forced to allocate your time to either one or the other. And after the choice the effect of neglecting one of them should be palpable. I simply don't think that it is true in SC2 once you get about halfway through a game and have your core bases and production set up. TL;DR: Don't treat SC2 as a good example of a macro game. It's more of a hybrid micro-macro game that's confused about its identity and its "orientation". I haven't really disproven your point with this argument -- I've only really had myself a rant on using SC2 as an example of a macro based RTS. I don't really think WC3 was much of the esports juggernaut you portray it as when compared to contemporary titles like Counterstrike. And if I'd make an argument to try and disprove your point, I'd base that argument on that it's likely wholly other factors that decide the success of an RTS esport than their supposed casual spectator appeal. I think social connectivity and cultural permeation were more important factors for both the success of BW and WC3. And in both cases it likely had little to do with the quality or casual accessability of the RTS itself, but rather that WC3 gained familiarization and cultural permeation from DotA; and likewise the stars aligned for BW in Korea with UMS/money maps/4v4s/3v3s and the PCBang culture. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
| ||
|
mnck
Denmark1518 Posts
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production) Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On February 17 2014 06:24 LaLuSh wrote: TL;DR: Don't treat SC2 as a good example of a macro game. It's more of a hybrid micro-macro game that's confused about its identity and its "orientation". I haven't really disproven your point with this argument -- I've only really had myself a rant on using SC2 as an example of a macro based RTS. I don't really think WC3 was much of the esports juggernaut you portray it as when compared to contemporary titles like Counterstrike. And if I'd make an argument to try and disprove your point, I'd base that argument on that it's likely wholly other factors that decide the success of an RTS esport than their supposed casual spectator appeal. I think social connectivity and cultural permeation were more important factors for both the success of BW and WC3. And in both cases it likely had little to do with the quality or casual accessability of the RTS itself, but rather that WC3 gained familiarization and cultural permeation from DotA; and likewise the stars aligned for BW in Korea with UMS/money maps/4v4s/3v3s and the PCBang culture. WC3 was always smaller than CS 1.6, that is true. That's really because FPS games were, are, and most likely always will be largely more popular than RTS games. CS 1.6 was appealing to the casual gamer and also had a great deal of depth, so it was a pretty particular case. Nonetheless, WC3 was definitely a successful game in e-sport. It had many competitions, both in leagues and solo, and well across the world, albeit mostly in Europe with a small scene in South Korea. WC3 is still big in China too, as the Chinese players joined late but in masses. If I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Blizzard actually marketed SC2 as a hybrid between BW and WC3, and claimed it had micro elements similar to WC3 while retaining some key principles of BW. I definitely remember that when they showed footage of SC2 for the first time, they displayed "flashy" elements, such as Banelings exploding and Baneling traps, Stalker blink, etc. Things that, out of context, would make you think that the micro might be close to WC3 and that the game would promote action. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I seem to recall that having resources generated via control points, so it was meant to favor map control for more continual fighting; but I only really played the demo and know nothing about what happened to it in terms of how it relates to this. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote: Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all). LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production) Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. | ||
| ||
