|
On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches.
You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it.
And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun.
|
On December 18 2014 04:51 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. The more I think on this, the more I feel it's unreasonable to expecxt casual players to play under the same rule set as pro players. Team games are different, before someone heads off down that road). Also, balance should be the goal for the top x% of the scene. It must be as balanced as reasonably possible for this target. But it doesn't mean it has to be balanced in bronze or silver. Screw it! 50% less damage to storm and fungals. Seeker missiles too. Just as an example, don't lynch me here. It doesn't matter at these low levels, what's far more important is the player has fun.
The problem then becomes which race is op in which league.
Eventually once the numbers get figured out, bronze/silver will be terran heavy, gold to platinum is all protoss, and zergs are so op at diamond (obviously examples pulled from my ass).
That experience is not very pleasurable as well. If they implement league level changes, it will also inhibit people from moving up in leagues.
If I knew protoss was slightly op in silver, but in gold they are weaker, I would be afraid of getting promoted.
|
On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun.
The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time.
Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance.
If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps.
|
Always another person view to make one rethink your original stance. Not easy thats for sure.
After blizzard usurpation of destinys article, I'm calling it now that he'll be writing another one a year or so after lotv, showing why it all went wrong asking why ity was brushed under the carpet.
Maybe the glass will be half full not empty, and lotv might be a turning point! 
|
On December 18 2014 05:03 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun. The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time. Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance. If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps.
No, I agree that fast is a better default speed for most players. But the general point is that you can have alternative game modes so that players are no longer forced into laddering. And these alternative modes can have a lower game speed and maybe enable some other options removed from the 'hardcore' 1v1 ladder (for instance the auto-production I mentioned earlier).
And well, creating a viable FFA scene will take a lot of work and it's probably not worth it for Blizzard and I'm not expecting it. I used to enjoy FFA a lot in my WC3 days, but that game is much better suited to FFA to begin with so it didn't require extra work there. I do think that there ought to be some broad and easy to understand adjustments you can make specifically for FFA to make it a lot more viable, so I don't think it should take Blizzard that much effort though (but well, it's a personal desire).
|
On December 18 2014 05:12 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 05:03 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun. The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time. Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance. If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps. No, I agree that fast is a better default speed for most players. But the general point is that you can have alternative game modes so that players are no longer forced into laddering. And these alternative modes can have a lower game speed and maybe enable some other options removed from the 'hardcore' 1v1 ladder (for instance the auto-production I mentioned earlier). And well, creating a viable FFA scene will take a lot of work and it's probably not worth it for Blizzard and I'm not expecting it. I used to enjoy FFA a lot in my WC3 days, but that game is much better suited to FFA to begin with so it didn't require extra work there. I do think that there ought to be some broad and easy to understand adjustments you can make specifically for FFA to make it a lot more viable, so I don't think it should take Blizzard that much effort though (but well, it's a personal desire).
An alternative game mode might be viable, but there would still need to be lots of balance testing on that mode. Any number of adjustments could be detrimental.
Regarding FFA scene, I am not very involved in FFA, but it could be another avenue to increase accessibility. I know I played a lot of FFA BGH games on BW and WC3, but not so much in SC2.
|
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
Some analytical replay/observing mode would be great too. By that i mean little indicators to see exactly what the players are doing, for example a little arrow that pops up above a unit, showing what direction the player ordered it to go (disappears after like 1 sec) / a little storm icon above a templar that has been ordered to storm / a target icon above the unit that gets focusfired by one player.
I´d also love to have build orders built in for unranked. So if you´re new you could just get an easy build from blizz and have it appear in your unranked games as a "to do list" (with short notes) or be able to create your own, either by playing it out and saving it, or getting it from other players.
And something like weekly tournaments in your division (only for those with say 100+ games in that division) with ingame prices like portraits, skins or little "championship-title"-esque crowns in bronze-masters color, below your portrait to brag with. So people that are stuck have something to play for and the opportunity to prepare for an opponent.
i´ll stop here before this gets too long..
|
On December 18 2014 04:46 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:44 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:41 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:36 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun. Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website. There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value. I agree. I think that's for their internal team to really take a hard look and see what they want out of SC2. BLIZZARD IF YOU'RE READING I'LL WORK PRO BONO PLS JUST FLY ME TO HQ Me too Blizzard. And maybe buy me a meal. I think almost anyone on TL will work for blizz to save SC2 for the price of a ticket to Irvine and a burrito. Good deal 
hell I'm in the area half the time, just put me up from Friday to Monday in a hotel and I'll work through the weekend. Don't even need food.
|
On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
Some analytical replay/observing mode would be great too. By that i mean little indicators to see exactly what the players are doing, for example a little arrow that pops up above a unit, showing what direction the player ordered it to go (disappears after like 1 sec) / a little storm icon above a templar that has been ordered to storm / a target icon above the unit that gets focusfired by one player.
I´d also love to have build orders built in for unranked. So if you´re new you could just get an easy build from blizz and have it appear in your unranked games as a "to do list" (with short notes) or be able to create your own, either by playing it out and saving it, or getting it from other players.
And something like weekly tournaments in your division (only for those with say 100+ games in that division) with ingame prices like portraits, skins or little "championship-title"-esque crowns in bronze-masters color, below your portrait to brag with. So people that are stuck have something to play for and the opportunity to prepare for an opponent.
i´ll stop here before this gets too long..
Your first enhancement is essentially a quality of life change, which isn't too unreasonable. It wouldn't affect the game itself, but let others know a little bit about you. I approve!
Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders.
They mentioned the possibility of tournaments built into battlenet. I don't know how that will work though, but your third wish might already be in the pipelines.
|
Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders.
Didn´t even think of that but have to agree. Maybe they should try implement mods more then (a bit like steam workshop).
|
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
|
On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
He is an asshole, but a smart one. Every point in his blog post I agree with. Only Blizz can save SC2 and push it to the heights of games like LoL, Dota, and now CSGO.
|
On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
I agree he is an asshole, but he makes some valid points.
Blizzard needs more interaction with the community and has to make this game more accessible.
Neither of his points are unreasonable, but he could definitely change his tone and word choice.
|
On December 18 2014 06:34 DuckDuckDuck wrote:Show nested quote +Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders. Didn´t even think of that but have to agree. Maybe they should try implement mods more then (a bit like steam workshop).
There is only one mod that Blizzard took and incorporated into the game, and I think its GameHeart mod. I don't really see them promoting any other mod though.
|
Gotta say I'm impressed with how open this thread is to radical ideas to pull in less hardcore players, compared to the relentless machismo on show when sc2 first came out
|
hi
I posted this on reddit too - Destiny's "active" player numbers are misleading.
So, nios.kr only looks at people that have placed into ranked ladder. A person that places into a ranked ladder isn't necessarily active if they only play "one" game.
"Activity" can be measured in other ways - "bonus pool remaining" or "most recent game played" being two ways to measure more recent activity. Just knowing this, you might think the player base is even smaller than what was posted. But this also applies to the other numbers quoted too - they don't take into account "activity"
Second, Destiny only references 1v1 ladder players in his post.
At the end of last season ~530,000 unique player IDs had placed into some kind of ranked league (1v1 or team type).
This doesn't include players that only play unranked, vs. AI, arcade/custom games.
I imagine the actual "playerbase" of SC2 is much higher than ~200k
|
On December 18 2014 08:14 Umpteen wrote:Gotta say I'm impressed with how open this thread is to radical ideas to pull in less hardcore players, compared to the relentless machismo on show when sc2 first came out
Radical ideas are ok to have, but it all depends on when.
This late in the development, when many of us have formed a decent opinion on the state of the game, then radical ideas are very good to shake it up and try something new.
The early SC2 years were so volatile, and nothing was really figured out, except for the early cheeses. Declaring radical changes in a time of chaos would only add more chaos. Not a great idea.
|
Regardless of those numbers, he still has a point.
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
|
On December 18 2014 08:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Regardless of those numbers, he still has a point.
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
sure, I'm just pointing out something other people have commented on (perhaps incorrectly).
|
On December 17 2014 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
great point,
EA/Victory Games attempted to create a F2P C&C game and after 5 years packed it in before the game was ever released.
the only RTS game remotely close to the financial success Blizzard has had with the genre is RA2. It sold 4 million copies. it was the traditional boxed copy model.
if anyone knows how to make money on an RTS game its Blizzard.
On December 18 2014 08:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
reducing the barrier to entry from July 2010 to today has contributed to the increase in hacking. Buying a WoL/HotS to get back into the game after being banned is a lot less expensive now. therefore, the financial penalty for hacking is lower.
if anything Blizzard is going in the opposite direction by declaring LotV a stand alone expansion.
This allows Blizzard to charge $60 for this game and avoid all the gray market selling/trading of old unused WoL , HotS accounts.
I think Blizzard monetization/revenue model with teh high priced boxed copy is generally the best method to maximize revenue from the game.
I'd probably sprinkle in a couple of the microtransaction suggestions Destiny makes in his blog in order to pay for ongoing patching, hacking prevention/detection and ban waves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
