EPT[D] Athleticism for Athleticism's Sake in SC - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Yorkie
United States12612 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
| ||
|
Ravomat
Germany422 Posts
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is? Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On April 30 2014 02:49 Ravomat wrote: Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part. Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
Relevant blog. In the light of this blog, if heavy mechanics have no place in modern e-sports, the word modern becomes sarcastic. | ||
|
Ravomat
Germany422 Posts
On April 30 2014 02:55 404AlphaSquad wrote: Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior. So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies? | ||
|
Ravomat
Germany422 Posts
On April 30 2014 03:09 Yorbon wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/322084-mechanics-is-strategy Relevant blog. In the light of this blog, if heavy mechanics have no place in modern e-sports, the word modern becomes sarcastic. You kinda missed the question. Nobody said there should be next to none mechanics. The point was if heavy mechanics should be a requirement to even play the game. This blog establishes that micro is a mechanic. No one has a problem when a game is decided through micro because micro can be observed and appreciated hence it is entertaining. People want more of that in SC2. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
Let's say 1v1 BW was too demanding and unrewarding for 95% of the gaming population to have any chance to get into it. Ok. Now let's introduce unlimited selection, MBS and pathfinding that acts like a fluid dynamics simulation. Let's also supply this game with a matchmaking service to make it even more accessible. The question now is: did these changes -- in any meaningful way -- lead to SC2 becoming more accessible to a broader subset of the gamer population? I'm sure a lot of casuals who played the campaign actually enjoyed the changes. So in that context it's a YES. But what about 1v1? Did unlimited selection, MBS, fluid dynamics pathfinding, a map pool that wasn't changed for 1 year for fear of confusing casuals, an initial approach of balancing the game for all skill levels; did all these things suddenly make 25% of the gamer population potential 1v1 RTS gamers? This is where I start having doubts. Personally I do not think SC2 1v1 multiplayer is, in any meaningful way, easier to get into than BW 1v1 multiplayer was. I think a 1v1 competitive RTS appealed to a similar percentage of the gamer population in 1998 as it did in 2010 and as it continues to do in 2014. This does not mean that I think SC2 should have single building selection or 12 unit limited selection. But there are certain aspects of the game where I think a change would have minimal to zero impact on any casual gamers' experience -- but also benefit competitive play greatly. One of those is smart casting. I feel strongly that SC2 should have semi-smartcasting such as in Dota2. This means that if you have 12 templars selected, only 1 of those templars will be highlighted, and only that one highlighted templar will cast a spell. This prevents 12 templars from casting 12 storms on a single spot like in BW. At the same time I think a semi-smartcasting change would benefit competitive play greatly, while having a minimal impact on the casual experience (if 1 in 100 campaign playing casuals notice anything I would be surprised). Another thing I think Blizzard need to understand is that ALL the regularly 1v1 playing players of SC2 (whether bronze or GM) are as far removed from the definition of a true casual gamer as you can possibly get. It is not in Blizzard's interest to treat this demographic like idiots because the company -- for some reason -- happens to believe that a 1v1 competitive multiplayer RTS has the possibility of being marketed broadly while still remaining competitively viable. I do not think you can create an RTS whose competitive mode is both competitively viable and accessible to casuals. I simply don't think it can be done. What I think future RTS' need to do is find a clever way to create a casual mode of the game that is similar enough in all essential aspects to the competitive mode. But ultimately I think, when creating an RTS, you need to separate the casual and the competitive experience. If you don't -- then your competitive mode will end up with legitimacy issues. A lot of people like to bring up MOBAs/ARTS as a counterexample where the professionals and the casuals play the same game and enjoy it. However, I don't think you can just call call captain's mode and all pick the "same game". There is a big difference in the competitive 5v5 MOBA rule set and the casual 5v5 MOBA ruleset. That's why only 5%-10% of these games' gamer populations play Captain's Mode. In SC2, however, Blizzard are stubborn and continue to insist on "the one true Starcraft II experience". That one true experience is called the 1v1 ladder. It has historically been marketed, simultaneously, to both casuals and professionals as the true Starcraft experience. Had SC2 not had an online requirement for play I am 100% sure professionals would have left battle.net for an iccup-like clone in the game's first year of existence. Such were the legitimacy problems of Blizzard's approach to the one true casual-competitive-compromise Starcraft experience. What I dislike the most about this whole process is that it ended up failing to appease most of the people in the two demographics it tried to simultaneously cater to. The professionals half-despise the game. The casuals half-despise watching the professionals play the game (cause if one thing's certain it's that MBS and unlimited selection sure as hell didn't turn these casuals into regular 1v1 RTS players). Half-despise is a strong word. I should rather say... everybody shits on the game but at the same time defends the above averageness of the entertainment value it provides. Hell, I watch SC2 myself and I tried to be a progamer in the game. It's a good, above average, esports game. The only problem about the game is that it's not great. The company behind it maintain an irrational fear of scaring away casuals by making big changes. What they fail to take into account, in my opinion, is that the demographic which regularly plays the 1v1 competitive mode of their game are the most hardcore demographic you will find in gaming. Their game already is the hardest and most stressful game in the world after Brood War -- whether it has MBS, unlimited selection and smartcasting or not. Casuals will not suddenly and magically start flocking to the SC2 ladder in LotV whatever they do. In this context one could make the claim that Blizzard are being highly irrational in their worries and in their refusal to make bigger changes to the competitive 1v1-mode of their RTS. The hardcore gamers that regularly play the game want more depth to it, and the casual gamers that view the game but never touch the game itself want to be entertained as best as possible. Both demographics want the same thing. Only Blizzard worry about scaring away a demographic that doesn't even exist for the relevant game mode. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On April 30 2014 03:31 Ravomat wrote: So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies? BW can definitely be improved. The thing is that in terms of INFORMATIONAL complexity, BW and SC2 are pretty much the same. But in term of MECHANICAL complexity, BW had higher comeback ratio because you can depend on your mechanics. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On April 30 2014 05:50 Laertes wrote: That's not true Xiphos. Starbow has more comeback potential than SC2 and the mechanics are the same. There is no smartcast in Starbow because the community right now can't handle it, and this is where I completely agree with Lalush...People seem to hate smartcast on principle alone, cite the "games should not need mechanical skill" argument and then refuse to accept the truth. I'd like to see what some of the people arguing against Lalush have to say. So far the discussion is brilliant by the way guys, keep it up! As always your just making up random statements with no support at all. Its based on no theoretical logical and I would rather argue that the empircal evidence doesn't support your random comments. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On April 30 2014 05:50 Laertes wrote: That's not true Xiphos. Starbow has more comeback potential than SC2 and the mechanics are the same. There is no smartcast in Starbow because the community right now can't handle it, and this is where I completely agree with Lalush...People seem to hate smartcast on principle alone, cite the "games should not need mechanical skill" argument and then refuse to accept the truth. I'd like to see what some of the people arguing against Lalush have to say. So far the discussion is brilliant by the way guys, keep it up! 1. StarBow have MORE informational complexity than SC2 which forces you to think more (See high ground advantage). 2. StarBow have a HIGHER micro potential units than SC2 with Reavers, Lurkers, Vultures, Carriers, etc. Because of the two reasons above, StarBow's comback density far surpasses SC2's. And because of #2, BW's mechanical prowess gives advantage to those with more practices. Many people think that ONLY MBS, Automine, and unlimited unit select are what constitute mechanics but the core DESIGN of the units themselves also factors into the category. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On April 30 2014 03:31 Ravomat wrote: So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies? BW can be improved sure. Like any game its not perfect. But believe me without smartcasting and unlimited unit selection and fights that werent over in 15-20 seconds, people microed their armies. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On April 30 2014 06:19 Laertes wrote: No I agree xiphos that's bullshit and people who want that need to understand the true implications of those systems. Edit: I feel I should be making myself clear because it sounds like I am saying "practicing harder is bullshit" which is actually a really stupid thing to say. Unlike a lot of the people who dislike MBS I think that if you put more time into something it should reward you. People who don't like mechanical limitations hate them because they aren't good enough(similarly to how people who can't play chess think chess sucks, people areal ways looking to manipulate circumstance and validate that they are worth something despite their shortcomings and the sooner you understand that about yourself the better.) But in reality if someone puts more time into something than you should be better than you. Mechanics are important to a game like starcraft and the hole they leave in games like starbow and starcraft is not an easy void to fill. However, people don't like it, and are under the impression that it should not the focus and so who am I to disagree? I don't fight the trend, you can't do it, it'll leave you in a wasteland where it is you alone and you can't survive unless you admit Defeat. Understand the implications of what you say is all I ask. Xiphos, for example, seems to hate mechanics because they keep him out of platinum, little aware that if he had practiced harder instead of forming an ideology around his suffering he might have alleviated it. Now where did I displayed that because I'm goddamn interested. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Why exactly do people think that everybody should have the right to do the same as c ronaldo without massive training? Isn't it trivial then? I actually think the strategy part doesn't have to be that deep to make a good esports. I mean there will always be some sort of strategy in EVERY game with rules (even the multitask games have some sort of strategy). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
'The company behind it maintain an irrational fear of scaring away casuals by making big changes. What they fail to take into account, in my opinion, is that the demographic which regularly plays the 1v1 competitive mode of their game are the most hardcore demographic you will find in gaming. Their game already is the hardest and most stressful game in the world after Brood War -- whether it has MBS, unlimited selection and smartcasting or not. Casuals will not suddenly and magically start flocking to the SC2 ladder in LotV whatever they do.' However all these attempts to cater to people who in reality aren't the primary Starcraft demographic do nothing to improve the experience for the more hardcore/competitive-oriented people who make up a hell of a lot of the active playerbase, now more so than ever. This isn't so much just to do with mechanics, but various other things such as removing w/l, mid-season demotions etc which I see as pretty transparent attempts to make people who suck at the game/have a horrible mindset stick around for a bit longer. As I said earlier in this thread, the amount of monotonous/repetitive actions you should have to preform, well I'm not sure where to arbitrarily draw that line. On the other hand it should require a roughly even mechanical baseline that stretches across all the three races, races 'having an identity' shouldn't mean they are a fuckload easier to play. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On April 29 2014 21:12 Ravomat wrote: What is fun or interesting about spending most of your time making units? Wouldn't it be better if you could spend that time actually fighting your battles? I understand the appeal of pristine macro I just don't understand obsessing about it. Wouldn't you prefer actually seeing what a guy does more than the results of it? Because it created a dynamic where some players who were better at micro would actually choose to engage with smaller armies and create a tempo game, where other players would opt for larger armies and timing attacks. If every player could optimally micro and macro at the same time, what happens is both players will opt for 200/200 macro games because it is the safest thing to do. However without it, players who have good micro MUST attack early because their advantage will diminish as time goes on and players who are better with larger armies and timing attacks will eventually always win. This is not the same as racial imbalance in SC2, where a race must attack early. This was player-type imbalance, each race was very good late game, so you just had players who had different styles. This is why Bisu vs Flash was always interesting. Bisu was a player that almost never fought with maxed armies, he would skirmish all over the map constantly all game so that the other player wouldn't be able to macro. Flash was the opposite, he would just defend and defend and defend until he could find the optimal time to attack with his deathball. So an exciting Flash game would be one where he would be confined to 3 bases, and Protoss on 5-6, and then you just watch Flash in 5 minutes decimate base after base with perfect maxed army control. An exciting Bisu game was when his probe would just be alive all game killing drones and blocking hatcheries while a dt would be racking up 40 kills. This meant that even though Bisu's PvT wasn't as good as Flash's TvP, Bisu always had the X factor (the ability to play perfectly in ACE matches) that would allow him to win most games against Flash when it mattered. Without these limitations it would have been impossible to put Flash on the backfoot, because Flash would always have enough mechanics to counter. Flash's micro is actually amazing, but his ability to deal with tempo games is not as good as Bisu. In fact the best tempo player by far in BW was Bisu and BW's limitations allowed players like him to reach the top and actually create exciting micro games, not diminish them. Now that you've seen an a-move BW game, I would very much appreciate you watched this whole game to see what I mean by the dynamic that it created. Every single game was just sooooo different depending on the players and that's one of the things that kept the crowds drawn in, I have watched a lot of SC2 but its still nothing like this. Normally TvP is quite deathbally, but Bisu vs Flash TvP was always the complete opposite. Flash made many mistakes this game, which was not typical of him, and it was Bisu's constant pressure that caused that to happen. | ||
| ||
