|
On August 04 2015 23:08 LSN wrote:
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.
.
Removing macro mechanics will not change a thing for your situation. You may think ' I could have beaten him if I practised more/without having to do so much macro', but the same is true for your opponent. If he was better in multitasking with macro mechanics, he will still be better without them. The execution will just shift. The gap won't get any smaller.
Practice is just an essential part of getting better. If you don't practice much, just accept that and play games against other people who don't practice as much. You can still have tons of fun with that... That's where the lower leagues are for. You'll never reach your personal cap until you play fulltime for years. There's no reason to not enjoy your normal playing level.
|
On August 04 2015 23:59 Sholip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing. I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something  . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work. And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so. All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned.
100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
|
Sorry but I completely disagree with the writer's opinion.
Being not fun is a great argument for removal.
Not having enough larva could had been solved by more hatcheries.
Not knowing what the opponent is doing does not make a great excuse for having it non-visible for opinion.
If it requires great deal of mechanics, maybe even more so than in game micro, then it obviously should be more visible. Blizzard loves to use creep as the best example.
Let's view back vods and how many have time to actually pause at zerg's base queens and comment on the energy? Even then, the energy used for transfuse is very much just creep queen not spreading creep efficiently and therefore having enough energy for transfuse.
Energy for late game Terran and Protoss and more or less zerg, are basically spam abilities, there is no more trade off between mule or scan for example when you have 15 CCs built around.
If macro mechanics are to be kept, they need to be improved by a great deal and far more viewer friendly.
|
On August 05 2015 00:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 23:59 Sholip wrote:On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing. I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work. And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so. All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned. 100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
Great minds think alike, huh?  + Show Spoiler +
|
Ofc you could theoretically remove running from soccer, it just doesn't occur to anyone in their right mind cause running is a natural thing to do.
Apparently pressing buttons on your keyboard isn't a natural thing, thus it can be removed. (that might be the logic?)
People are way too fixated on specific actions being fun imo, it simply doesn't matter, the whole experience has to be fun as a whole => the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
|
On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context.
True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
|
On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever.
|
On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
Ok, now we have to find the reason WHY this is the case. What exactly is unfun?
As i said in other posts, i think the major "unfun" aspect of sc2 is the multitasking requirement.
In sc2 you need a lot of multitasking for action to happen, in all the other games this isn't the case because they are team games and none of the players has to do any multitasking.
So, do we really want that for sc2? Is the 1vs1 focus the wrong one? (Archon mode could tackle this problem, maybe)
|
On August 04 2015 23:21 ImgTrinity wrote:
Amazing article, expressing how I feel about the current "I'm noob but I criticise macro mechanism because I can't do it/understand it" that we see everywhere.
Actually most of the people you see criticizing macro mechanics here are competent players. I'm a master zerg player myself (GM on lotv beta though that doesn't mean a thing), with good injects, yet I'm all for making macro mechanics slightly less overwhelming. It would definitely make me lose some "skill" relative to the average player but I'm happy with it because it would make for a better game (with less mindless APM spam but more strategy and action).
In the past, I have spent hundreds of hours practising with the arcade "multitasking trainer" just to get to a decent APM. Unlike most of the other player I know (who already quit playing SC2) I didn't completely hate that process but I sure didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did playing the game. The fact that this feels like a necessary step to even begin to enjoy the strategic aspects of the game is just sad. If new players get the opportunity to enjoy the game without going through the same things we had to, good for them!
Like many others here, I'm the only one left from a group of 10+ friends who used to play SC2. They all loved brainstorming about strategy and getting better at the game but they got increasingly frustrated with the fact you have to spend a huge amount of time working specifically on the most boring facets of the game just to be able to enjoy everything else SC2 has to offer.
Your post makes it sound like the main reason why you're so attached to macro mechanics is that they make you feel good about being competent at something. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the kind of person who likes to put down the people you play by calling them noobs or whatever. Imo, that kind of attitude and the overwhelming macro requirements are the two main things that turn off new players.
|
On August 05 2015 00:46 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles. even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever.
And by your logic we should make every game, sport, book, movie, music into a TV show because most people watch TV. Seriously... the greatest strawman the north has ever seen.
|
On August 04 2015 23:21 Qwizzyx wrote:
The fact that this beautiful article even need to exist makes me sad.
I have no idea what people see in the larva inject mechanic, or MULE for that part. The whole thing reads like sentimental bullshitting. What was that thing about MMA and Gumiho not being able to distinguish themselves after medivac boost became a thing? MMA fell off in like 2012 and had a resurgence in HotS. HE couldn't even replicate his own play style to decent effect by the end of WoL because the hyper aggression that he pulled off was dead.
His assertion that macro mechanics add complexity to the game is wrong. It makes playing the game more complicated, much in the same way that having to crank something in front of your car frequently to keep it going is also more complicated than just turning the key and going. That's not complexity, it's busy work that shouldn't need to be done to play the game.
His Flash vs soO game example was also pretty bad. He chalks it up to soO's superior mechanics at the start of his breakdown, and how important injects were (yes, if you have bad injects you'll fall behind), and then goes on to talk about how what really won the game is how masterfully he played out the engagements. Nobody cared that he hit his injects so crisply, because it's it's arbitrary busywork in the game. If inject never existed and the larva just popped on a 40 second timer nobody would have said "hey, what if we made an ability on the queen that required you to babysit the hatchery and hit an on/off switch frequently or your production capacity would be cut in half? That sounds like a fun and interesting idea!" because it's not a good move. The only reason it ever existed in the first place was to placate the BW fans who thought that having workers auto mine from rally would ruin the game by dumbing it down. Not surprisingly those same people were also up in arms when auto mine from start was put in, only to find out that it actually doesn't matter at all.
He does make a decent point about how it establishes baseline multitasking, but the problem is that it's the video game equivalent of patting your head and rubbing your belly. It's not necessary. Why do we insist on having bad mechanics in the game for the sake of giving people something to do? Is the game really so bad that we have to put mindless, repetitive actions in our strategy game so that we aren't just sitting there doing nothing? I don't think it's gotten that bad.
His claim about Protoss having to choose where spending chrono boost wisely is accurate if you ask me. My only complaint is that you need to keep revisiting the building to reapply the chrono boost when it wears off. I'd suggest that they be stackable so that casting a 2nd one on an active one adds 20 seconds to the duration. It doesn't effect the decision making part of it but it would take much of the busy work out of it. Chrono Boost is also nice because it's a useful tool at times when scouting. Overall I think it should stay, but we should keep our minds open to the idea of making adjustments to it.
As for the Terran macro mechanics, they are a level above Zerg as far as decision making, but it's not a huge gap. Supply Drop is almost always inferior to MULE, and scan is almost never a real "choice". There are times when you need them, like for clearing creep or sniping cloaked units, and when those times are not up you MULE because even for scouting it's often more cost effective to send an SCV out on the map, build a barracks, float it to where you want to scout and let it die than waste the MULE. What a choice! That being said, with MULE gone and other mechanics nerfed a bit there is a legitimate case for supply drop going in as a macro mechanic. This is interesting because it actually changes the value of the building it is applied to. Suddenly that depot that is ignored for reactors, upgrades, and worker lines starts to look like a much juicier target, and Terran may have to plan their base defense accordingly to deal with harass sniping dropped depots. This adds counter play. Right now MULE doesn't really encourage counter play. It's a given for most of the time, and it encourages the asinine practice of making a dozen OCs and saccing 80% of the workers on the map in favor of MULES.
My thoughts on potential changes are as follows:
Spawn Larva is a stupid ability that does nothing but cut the production of Zerg by more than half if it's forgotten, and lets the race operate as it's supposed to if done perfectly. Remove it, make it base-line, or put the ability on the hatchery itself with a spawning pool requirement at least so the queen can actually do the only really interesting thing that the queen can do; spread creep. Zerg will make them anyway for early game defense and creep spread. Right now it's just a cluster fuck of uninteresting play.
Chrono Boost should be stackable such that adding a 2nd Chrono to an active one extends the duration of it by 20s. This only serves to keep the current decision making of chrono boost (which is decent) while removing the tedium of babysitting an upgrade to keep it boosted. It is only a QoL improvement.
MULE, if it has to stay, needs to be reduced in effectiveness so that it's not such a clearly superior decision to the other two abilities sharing the energy pool. This will obviously require changes to the numbers of other race mechanics, or a buff to Terran to compensate (the former would likely be easier to balance). Making MULEs mine at a similar rate as 2 SCVs instead of ~4 might be somewhere in the target area, and also have the benefit of making end game mass OC less viable and also encouraging more MULEs dropped in the field as emergency repair (yay real options!), also it puts less overall emphasis on OCs in the first place, possibly even to the point where PFs become a real option. Nerfing MULE also has the effect of improving the value of Supply Drop as an instant, but more dangerous way to spend energy as relying on too many super depots can really bite you in the ass if strong harass comes around and picks of 3-4 super depots and the energy isn't there to drop more.
Remember, you always have the choice to shoot yourself in the foot or not to shoot yourself in the foot, but when the payoff is getting shot in the foot it's almost never a real choice.
|
On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles.
I wonder who actually gave the feedback that injects aren't fun. I don't think blizzard came up with it themselves. Do they have sources that indicate it is a majority of people who think that way? The Community Update of July 17th suggests that this direction, maybe even this particular idea of pushing the macromechanics back comes from the Korean professional players. The very players that are used as argument for those mechanics in the OP.
|
On August 05 2015 00:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles. I wonder who actually gave the feedback that injects aren't fun. I don't think blizzard came up with it themselves. Do they have sources that indicate it is a majority of people who think that way? The Community Update of July 17th suggests that this direction, maybe even this particular idea of pushing the macromechanics back comes from the Korean professional players. The very players that are used as argument for those mechanics in the OP.
I think guessing is not helping anyone.
|
On August 05 2015 00:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 23:59 Sholip wrote:On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing. I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work. And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so. All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned. 100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping.
We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo.
Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar".
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected.
As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal. Is it fun? Some tasks may not be fun themselves but they are part of the fun in a competitive game designed to be a sport.
If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too (surely, some are not ok with that).
Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?"
This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic.
I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
|
On August 05 2015 00:49 Sholip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:46 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 04 2015 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:On August 04 2015 03:39 Yorkie wrote:On August 04 2015 03:35 Big J wrote:I guess I'm not gonna make a lot of friends here, but the first part of the article is a crap-pile of strawmen that made me stop reading, but one thing I can't get around to respond to is this sentence: Being “not fun” is not an argument. Well, it fucking is. It is a fucking game. It is the best fucking argument you can bring for or against a feature of a game. Maybe not on its own because you very well go on to argue why the not fun part can improve the the game overall, but in essence if you were to made a pro/contra-list for a feature the very first question you should ask "is this thing fun?". It's a damn good argument. You may be able to overrule it by considering the overall picture, but you can't just wipe it off the table. I love when people invoke the phrase "strawman argument" without actually knowing what it means and acting like it's a trump card to pull in internet arguments. The first half are Stuchiu's personal responses to blizzard's own statements on why they feel macro mechanics should be removed Everything in the post are personal responses. There is nothing objective about this topic. Before you say it, two examples don't make it objective. And I agree with Big J, fun is the most important part of the equation. I loved playing zerg in SC1BW, I hated inject mechanic in SC2. There is nothing objective about "fun". That is the reason "fun" is a very bad argument, you simply cannot assume something is fun/unfun for most people without any context. True, but can measure it in one way. The number of people playing it. Which is low for SC2 compared to other esport titles. even more people are watching TV. by your logic we should remove all strategic aspects about sc2 and just make it into a TV-show about relations and drama or whatever. And by your logic we should make every game, sport, book, movie, music into a TV show because most people watch TV. Seriously... the greatest strawman the north has ever seen.
do you really believe his argument is worth a serious counter-argument?
|
On August 05 2015 00:54 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:11 Big J wrote:On August 04 2015 23:59 Sholip wrote:On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing. I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work. And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so. All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned. 100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping. We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo. Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar". Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected. As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal. If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too. Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic. I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be.
But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity?
I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
|
Well, I enjoy strategy games, I'm more impressed with people's brains than I am with people's hands, and so I'm obviously all for less of what I don't really care about.
That being said, I don't see it happening, and considering how the community views protoss in general I'm kind of perplexed by Blizzard's proposition to push the game in the protoss direction.
|
On August 05 2015 01:02 Big J wrote:
Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted.
I don't know if it was intentional, but congratulations, you just won today.
I agree with the rest of the post, by the way.
|
On August 05 2015 01:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:54 Superbanana wrote:On August 05 2015 00:11 Big J wrote:On August 04 2015 23:59 Sholip wrote:On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
Look I just don't see the point in arguing about what's best for the game. There's rhetoric on both sides that sounds pretty good. I don't think we can figure it out with just words. What we can try to figure out is what StarCraft's identity is. What makes it unique? Why play it instead of a MOBA or an MMORPG or an FPS? Why have people played StarCraft in particular instead of other RTS's? StarCraft is the best example of a game that took the "boring" aspects of sports, like training your strength and speed and endurance, and infused it into a game with a lot of strategy and finesse and flourish, just like the best sports have. And now I think there are a bunch of pure gamers who want this "video game" to be more game-like when it's actually more sport-like. Maybe these aspects aren't "fun" for most people but "fun" is just one aspect of "happy" and people play StarCraft for over a decade because it's more than just amusing. I actually thought about this exact parallel with soccer. Only I realized that it is flawed. Because you just can't remove running from soccer. The game would not make sense. Like would you not be allowed to run faster than X km/h, or you would have to stay completely still? Anyway, the point is that all the other rules of the game would not make sense if you "removed" running. You would have to change literally every rule for that to work, and it would probably end up as a board game or something . The thing with StarCraft is that you can change the macro mechanics (notice I did not write "remove," although I think you could remove most of the macro aspects) and the game would still make sense. It would be different, depending on the magnitude of the changes, but it would still work. And about the loss of the identity. First, if one is against any changes because it would jeopardize the game's identity, then they automatically refuse any opportunity for the game to be better. Sometimes a change makes the game better, sometimes not, but opposing a change just because it would be different is not a right mindset I think. Second, were limited unit selection and other things in BW that today would seem a needless barrier also part of the RTS identity? Did removing them turn out to be bad? I don't think many people would say so. All I'm trying to say is "preserving the game's identity" is not always a good excuse to dismiss change proposals. And it's not like the whole macro aspect of the game is to be removed. It is only the additional macro mechanics, and only a modification is planned. 100% this. Removing running from football is not possible. But automating/removing macro mechanics is not removing running though, it is giving the players modern shoes so that they don't trip all the time. Tripping might have been an important part that you had to play around in football previously, but that doesn't mean tripping is football's identity nor that the game is worse without tripping. We can go on forever with the analogies, a bit hard to discuss like this imo. Soccer and running aside, the point was that macro mechanics are a substantial part of the game's identity. Changing the game to the point it doesn't feel the same to attract a new public is not the way to go. Each of the old players will have to ask themselves if they like this "new game that feels familiar". Its not necessarily a bad thing, but i don't think its the right way to make a game expansion. Limited unit selection was part of BW identity and im glad it changed. The result? Many BW players disliked it and still play BW or don't play Starcraft at all. However, SC2 was a new game and changing the game's identity was expected. As Nony pointed out, SC2 was designed as a sport-like game and things like game mechanics that can always be improved but are never perfected was a way to achieve this goal. If blizzard thinks LotV should feel like SC3 then fine, i disagree with this decision but im ok with that. Nedless to say many people dislike it too. Im not saying that changing the macro mechanics will turn it into a different game, im merely pointing out that the game's identity should be taken into account. Just ask yourselves this question: "Is this game still SC2 with no chrono boost, larvae inject and mules?" This is not rhetorical, i think its a relevant question to the topic. I agree, preserving the game's identity is not always a good reason to dismiss change proposals. But it can be. But why is it the game's identity? Why weren't Swarm Hosts part of the HotS identity? They were also deeply rooted. Why don't we have the same argument against introducing the adept? Why does Protoss get a core unit that completely messes up the identity? Why is practically removing the Colossus, the most iconic unit of SC2-Protoss not a change of identity? I think this argument is very arbitrary and I'm not going to give someone else prerogative of interpretation over what I should think is the game's identity. For me inject's are plainly not part of the game's identity. It is a spell like any other, just a very powerful and poorly designed one.
When it comes to macro mechanics, i think changing them can hurt the competitive (sport-like) aspect of the game, sorry, i was editing the post too because i realized its not very clear.
Iconic units are part of this identity too, the question is how much can we change it. Removing and including a couple units is not nearly as significative imo. They are the tools, not the core.
PS: Im not against changing the macro mechanics, i think proposed changes should be tested and discussed. Im against the removal of chrono, mules and inject tho.
|
On August 04 2015 23:41 NonY wrote:
Reading so many comments, I don't think people understand the kind of activity StarCraft is. Do you want to remove the running from soccer? Is it unfair that only people with time to extensively train their bodies to be able to run get to enjoy soccer at a competitive level? Why not let people only train ball skills and teamwork, which are the fun parts of soccer, and remove all the running? Everyone knows running sucks and the people who like running are in the minority and the people who insist on having running in soccer are just stubborn traditionalists who aren't doing what's best for the game anymore.
NonY, did you really just compare injecting larva and dropping MULEs with running? Here's the thing, for a lot of people running isn't the most fun part of soccer, if it were people would probably just take up track because it will give them maximum fun for the duration. However, part of soccer isn't just kicking a ball and team work. There's a lot of positioning, and actual direct competing for the ball. If you can find a way for soccer players to move around the field in real time and interact with each other quickly there might not actually be a need for running in soccer.
There always the case for excitement with running too. There's a lot of excitement to be had by a sweet break away down the field, and a lot of tension if the defense might catch up. Not even Apollo, for all his hype, could get away with making an inject something to get out of your seat for. It's not even good for the spectators. Running, as you put it, is a clear case of a game having something necessary, but perhaps a bit lackluster, to allow you to do the other things in the game.
Inject Larva isn't actually required to make the game play better. It just exists to give a player something to do. If we're really that hurt for things to do in the game let's remove it and put something that not only gives us something to do, but also has a higher skill ceiling, real counter play, decisions, and doesn't cut your production in half just for forgetting about it for a little bit (while also eating into your limited supply count). The same goes for MULEs.
Largely, I think Chrono Boost is pretty ok because it offers players real choices, but could use some touching up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
