EPTOn August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote:
Maybe the discussion can be helped with agreeing on certain things and create a logical discussion:
1. The opinion, likes or preferences of professional players have absolutely no matter in this issue at the current state of Sc2. They only exist because there are sponsors to support their teams and tournaments etc. Sponsors do that because they want something in return. Viewer numbers are really low for Sc2. Single players of other games get 5 times + as many viewers as side events of sc2. Main events of Sc2 hardly get a bit more viewers than a single cs or dota player that is messing around in public with random teammates at the same time.
Probably talking bullshit on a stream could grant you more viewers than streaming sc2 currently. If ppl, e.g. pro players insist on keeping their mechanics so that they can maintain their elaborated status, then they are digging their own progamer graves if this in the end doesn't help to attract more people to the game and sponsors gonna drop it.
(1) So the first thing to agree on is that the right decision for everyone included that likes to see sc2 to flourish for one or another reason is to do what potentially can attract more basic users to the game.
The question then is if reducing macro mechanic requiremtns is capable of doing so.
(2) As a matter of fact and opposed to what the opening post says, I think it is pretty clear that the high macro mechanics of sc2 compared to other games serve as an entry barrier for many players and drive them away.
Do these macro mechanics add anything to the strategic depth or decisionmaking process of the game?
(3) It can be agreed on that they don't or barely do.
How do these macro mechanics work exactly for player experience?
(4) It is only to some extend something that you acquire permanently. Every player has a basic level and can push this through practise to his personal temporary cap. While a pro player's basic level might be high grandmaster and practises alot to push it to world excellence a diamond players basic level might be platin but he pushes it with 100s of games to diamond but would fall back to platin if he isnt training anymore (compare MMR adaption).
So we are talking about a spread that is involved for any player. Everyone who is not practising frequently is more close to his basic level and in order to reach your cap of macro mechanics each player has an individual factor multiplied with games played per time that allows him to reach or come close to his own cap.
(5) I assume that players feel the game is fun when they are capable of playing close to their personal cap and I assume furthermore that players feel that the game is unfun when they are only capable of playing close to their basic level as described above.
As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it.
I wanted to write more about it but I will leave it to that, I guess its enough of information. Just let me add one more sentence:
Good macro mechanics is something that can be adoreable compared to how it is adoreable to be able to throw a ball as far as possible. If you don't train it almost every day you will lose the ability to throw it far even if you knew how to do it. In a world with alot of tasks, high workloads in schools, university and jobs, alot of people try to dodge things that require constant training such as throwing a ball as wide as possible. And in the matter of tv sports it is probably not exciting to watch someone who can throw a ball as wide as possible at all, no matter how hard it is and how long the guy has trained for it. If you are a thrower yourself and once were good at it, you wont continue to throw balls if you don't train for it daily, instead you simply leave it for good.
Maybe the discussion can be helped with agreeing on certain things and create a logical discussion:
1. The opinion, likes or preferences of professional players have absolutely no matter in this issue at the current state of Sc2. They only exist because there are sponsors to support their teams and tournaments etc. Sponsors do that because they want something in return. Viewer numbers are really low for Sc2. Single players of other games get 5 times + as many viewers as side events of sc2. Main events of Sc2 hardly get a bit more viewers than a single cs or dota player that is messing around in public with random teammates at the same time.
Probably talking bullshit on a stream could grant you more viewers than streaming sc2 currently. If ppl, e.g. pro players insist on keeping their mechanics so that they can maintain their elaborated status, then they are digging their own progamer graves if this in the end doesn't help to attract more people to the game and sponsors gonna drop it.
(1) So the first thing to agree on is that the right decision for everyone included that likes to see sc2 to flourish for one or another reason is to do what potentially can attract more basic users to the game.
The question then is if reducing macro mechanic requiremtns is capable of doing so.
(2) As a matter of fact and opposed to what the opening post says, I think it is pretty clear that the high macro mechanics of sc2 compared to other games serve as an entry barrier for many players and drive them away.
Do these macro mechanics add anything to the strategic depth or decisionmaking process of the game?
(3) It can be agreed on that they don't or barely do.
How do these macro mechanics work exactly for player experience?
(4) It is only to some extend something that you acquire permanently. Every player has a basic level and can push this through practise to his personal temporary cap. While a pro player's basic level might be high grandmaster and practises alot to push it to world excellence a diamond players basic level might be platin but he pushes it with 100s of games to diamond but would fall back to platin if he isnt training anymore (compare MMR adaption).
So we are talking about a spread that is involved for any player. Everyone who is not practising frequently is more close to his basic level and in order to reach your cap of macro mechanics each player has an individual factor multiplied with games played per time that allows him to reach or come close to his own cap.
(5) I assume that players feel the game is fun when they are capable of playing close to their personal cap and I assume furthermore that players feel that the game is unfun when they are only capable of playing close to their basic level as described above.
As an example I take myself in this case: I am only playing on my basic level of Sc2 mostly. This is quite decent due to about 20 years of RTS experience but still after 10-20 games I get the feeling that I could do things so much better if I just constantly trained. Then I realize that reaching my personal cap in Sc2 would require investments of time and efforts that I am not willing to give and especially not capable to keep up in order to give it any overall long term sense. The logical solution is that I don't play at all. Playing on my basic level is not rewarding and not fun for me mid and long term, it is good enough for a few games tho. I bet this is exactly the same personal decisionmaking that most players go through when deciding about investing in and playing Sc2 or not and this is independent from your own rank or level of skill.
How does the described spread combine with macro mechanics?
(6) Marco mechanics is probably the main thing that increases the width of this spread. If this width could be reduced, alot of more players could more easily find access to Sc2 without committing their whole life and time onto it.
I wanted to write more about it but I will leave it to that, I guess its enough of information. Just let me add one more sentence:
Good macro mechanics is something that can be adoreable compared to how it is adoreable to be able to throw a ball as far as possible. If you don't train it almost every day you will lose the ability to throw it far even if you knew how to do it. In a world with alot of tasks, high workloads in schools, university and jobs, alot of people try to dodge things that require constant training such as throwing a ball as wide as possible. And in the matter of tv sports it is probably not exciting to watch someone who can throw a ball as wide as possible at all, no matter how hard it is and how long the guy has trained for it. If you are a thrower yourself and once were good at it, you wont continue to throw balls if you don't train for it daily, instead you simply leave it for good.
Don't have time to explain atm, I will try to flesh this out later, but i do not agree with several of the things you say can be agreed upon.
.
