|
On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Have you even read what I wrote?
It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way.
I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
@Nony
Sure you could argue that Sc2 should stay as it is and therefore inevitably continue to get more and more niche. This is the big question to think and argue about. In which direction do we want to go? But one thing is fact as well: The less people overall play and invest into sc2 the less sponsors players, teams and tournaments will get. This in return will also make alot of the top players go to where the money (and possibly also where the fun) is.
|
On August 05 2015 01:09 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 01:02 Big J wrote: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.
That's of course a valid concern. I don't believe the game would be "too easy" or something, but it would definitely change a bit. Though less than people pretend. There is neither infinitely more to do that you could spend the extra attention on, nor are the macro mechanics that taxing - assuming you learned the right tricks like backspace inject-cycles - that professionals would suddenly play that much better due to that change. From a gameplay perspective I think this change gets more and more subtle (as this article shows, the difference is very subtle if even adressable towards soO's great injects at all) the higher you get. While a missed inject or 200stored energy on your CC are probably some of the bigger reasons why people lose games, aka "learn to macro".
|
On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good.
Really.....?
You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
|
What about dividing the gameplay based on the race?
If you play Zerg, mechanics are favored against strategy
If you play Protoss, strategy is more important than mechanics
It is already the case imo and maybe it just needs to be assumed like this.
|
On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect.
No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum.
What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap.
Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basis level than you fall back on during periods of inactivity. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
|
On August 05 2015 00:48 nTzzzz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is the truth ^
No amount of unit balance is going to fix it, the idea that brutally tedious game mechanics make the game interesting; has been proven false by every modern game. Some of the macro-rules are like playing QWOP or Surgeon Simulator because of myths that awkward redundant tasks are making the game better.
As if watching pros shift click their army instead of micro-ing it because they are too busy tabbing through queens to clicking their hatcheries 40 times a game is now somehow leading us to a bright future of RTS's games.
Its not a zero sum game, you can make macro mechanics less of a grind without making them less important. You can take out some of the mindless actions and give people room to make better decisions, its okay if this game takes a turn towards a more cognitive, smarter decision strategy game instead of bogging the whole game down in repetitive tasks.
|
On August 05 2015 01:13 Petninja 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.
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.
yet there are football players who are famous for their ability to constantly run and stress their opponents. Theyre able to use their own stamina and endurance to stress out your opponents whos endurance/stamina are lesser than yours.
Not everything has to be hypeable, macro mechanics are "subtle" yet, when well handled, provides a great satisfaction to viewers and players who appreciate the mechanical aspects of the game.
Why does the game have to be about mindless hyping, loudness and standing in your seat?
|
On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time.
if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
Personally I never had to solely practice how to inject larva "for hundreds of hours" in a macro trainer, playing games and having fun learning is why I want macro mechanics to continue to be a part of the game.
|
On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas.
This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again.
I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak.
Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
|
As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOLOn August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't. I think the argument is more akin to: rts is played in a particular manner, and if you remove enough of its features and dumb it down appreciably enough, your no longer playing the same game, or the same genre. And they like it how it is, and would rather see it die a slow natural death than simply change into crap. I'm not interested in doing whats good for the genre, if whats good is the end of macro for crying out loud.
|
On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't.
Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
|
On August 05 2015 02:46 Dazed_Spy wrote:
As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOL
Bullshit talking like this should be banned out of these forums if it was moderated correctly.
|
On August 05 2015 02:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't. Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
No!
The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves.
I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
|
On August 05 2015 02:48 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:46 Dazed_Spy wrote:
As someone who figured out sc2 was a simplistic piece of trash rapidly descending into even worse crap, I'm pleased to see that Blizzard genuinely is interested in killing RTS as a genre, and I wasnt simply paranoid. "Lets remove macro!" LOL Bullshit talking like this should be banned out of these forums if it was moderated correctly. Yes because theres no thematic link between SC2's introduction of auto mining, multi building select, and their current intentions to whole sale remove macro. 
|
On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change.
Oh I dont give a flying crap if the game is twice as big as LoL or as small as the current BW-scene. as long as I can find games on ladder, there is something to watch and every now and then a tournament. Gameplay-wise, sc2 has never been more beautiful than it is right now, if Blizzard were to break the 3 base eco cap, remove forcefields/MSC and the need for them, fix zerg AA(the new viper ability is way to hardcounter-ish) and some other tweaks, it would be close to perfect.
SC2 will NEVER become as big as the mobas. NEVER. if people want a lot of micro that doesnt require multitasking, they can play mobas or Company of heroes or grey goo or total war or other similar games.
So instead of trying to shape SC2 into some cheap moba "copy" make it the best damn RTS it can possibly be. Cater it to RTS-players, the kind who prefer mechanics over games where your base is insignificant and you never have to look at it ever.
if SC2 where to become something I no longer love, why would I give a flying hump about its future?
You assume that the reason people dont watch sc2 is because of the mechanically demanding aspects. What exactly are you basing this on?
edit: I literally said that I didnt "have" to spend a fuckton of hours practicing anything. I played the game and had fun learning the game, as I played it.
|
On August 05 2015 02:49 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't. Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption No! The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves. I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-(
And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here.
Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
|
On August 05 2015 02:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:49 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: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. Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't. Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption No! The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves. I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-( And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here. Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption
Someone a few posts above you told me that there are mechanically less demanding games like mobas or CS and I should go play these games instead.
What do you think is the main difference between CS:GO or mobas and Sc2? It is the mechanical requirement to play the game.
Now it is about you to explain me what other reason than these mechanical requirement are responsible for esports shifting towards these games and not about me to explain the obvious.
|
On August 05 2015 02:57 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2015 02:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 05 2015 02:49 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:48 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 05 2015 02:39 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 02:27 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On August 05 2015 02:09 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 01:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 05 2015 01:13 LSN wrote:On August 05 2015 00:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
[quote]
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.
Have you even read what I wrote? It is about how to make Sc2 attractive for a larger target group. I didn't ask you to explain to how to change my playing habits, how to get better or for any other advice, as this is neither the topic of the discussion nor wont it change the declining state in that Sc2 is in in any way. I enjoy conversation on an intelligent level, if you can't provide that please leave it for good. Really.....? You claim "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 al" and use this as an argument for removing macro mechanics because it will attract more players that way. I'm just saying that getting rid of macro mechanics won't remove the time investment part of starcraft and that I think your example is incorrect. No! I didn't mean reaching the max-cap of your overall abilities or working on increasing the temporal cap in order to reach this maximum. What I mean is what you lose in macro mechanics when not playing consistently compared to players who do and call this spread between basis skill level and temporal cap. Then again to remind you I assumed that Sc2 is fun when you can play closer to your temporal cap than to your basic skill level. This, tho, requires to play a certain amount (individual factor for each player) of games per time. if you dont enjoy the mechanic aspects of rts perhaps RTS is not for you? there are plenty of games where mechanics are a non-factor such as hearthstone or mobas. This is not about me. Probably you have missed that teams, players, tournaments and sponsors vanish. Viewer numbers of main events drop to levels of where it is really critical. If you prefer a dead but mechanically demanding game over a less mechanically demanding but a bit more flourishing game then you should argue for this instead of trying to shift the topic again. I wonder why the youngsters can't understand that someone doesn't argue for his personal benefit but for the future of a game and whole genre, so to speak. Your argument is that you have trained alot to acquire your mechanics and therefore anyone else should as well, and if they don't then the game should rather die slowly instead of tolerating a change. Mindsets like the one that you have are responsible for people moving to mobas and CS and the viewers with them so that they get the tournaments with the big sponsors and prices while Sc2 doesn't. Assuming people would watch sc2 more if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption No! The logical assumption is that ppl watch the games that they play themselves. I wonder why I have to explain the world to everyone, really ;-( And i wonder why you think you are so much smarter than anyone else here. Ok then again, assuming that significantly more people would play the game if it was less mechanical is just that, an assumption Someone a few posts above you told me that there are mechanically less demanding games like mobas or CS and I should go play these games instead. What do you think is the main difference between CS:GO or mobas and Sc2? It is the mechanical requirement to play the game. Now it is about you to explain me what other reason than these mechanical requirement are responsible for esports shifting towards these games and not about me to explain the obvious.
Nice of you to use my post where Im telling you, if you dont enjoy mechanics, maybe you shouldnt try to play a game that requires mechanics, when there are other games, like company of heroes, hearthstones, Grey goo, command and conquer etc that require almost no mechanics.
There are plenty of less popular games than sc2 that are way less mechanically demanding. To use your own logic: the cause of them being less popular is obviously because of them being less mechanically demanding than SC2, now prove me wrong.
|
I already mentioned this elsewhere, the main difference is that they are teamgames and thus need to multitasking to create constant action all over the map.
Now it depends what removing mechanics means exactly. If we talk about removing macro completely you still will need to multitask a lot, which is exactly what people in general don't like if you ask me. All these mobas and csgo have this in common, no multitasking (in general)
I doubt we want to remove mechanics alltogether?
If we wanna make the game less mechanical (which in reality means 'less about multitasking') we get pretty fast to a problem that it will be hard to make the game actually exciting, for watching.
More players = more viewers isn't true all the time, the conversion rates are a big deal here (sc2 has a lot of viewers if we consider the active ladder base, lol has a low viewer count if we consider it)
http://www.ongamers.com/articles/dreamhack-hearthstone-numbers-are-out-550-000-uniques/1100-1788/ this article says hearthstone had about 55k viewers for the finals, that's pretty low for a game with 30 million players (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/05/hearthstone-reaches-30-million-players) for example.
So what is the point here? The game has to be exciting to watch competetively as well, which means a lot of action (mobas, csgo) How do we manage to do this without the need of multitasking? You would need to redesign sc2 quite a bit, removing some macro mechanics won't do anything to get there. (i actually think archon mode might be the best solution => go the route all the other big esports do, teamgames)
|
You should at least agree on that high mechanical demands is something that holds alot of players back from playing Sc2 and not the other way round. Cause that is common sense. Therefore it is an entry barrier.
You can go and research yourself why coh or the companies behind it don't have the means or will to push it further e.g. with big tournaments and what other reasons there are in the game itself for why it is not as successful.
Sc2 and blizzard has everything that is needed. It is in one league with other tripple A multiplayer games like CS or Dota so that I would rather search to compare it with these games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
