|
On April 15 2016 16:32 Musicus wrote:
Sometimes I think it is, wc3 and BW were both slower, but then again it's also very exciting due to the speed. Every time I go back to wc3, it just feels soooo slow.
but at the same time, every player in BW was much slower themselves because it took a lot more time to execute the same actions
SC2 had to speed up to remain mechnically challenging in any way.
|
If the attacks of every unit was slightly decrease I think we will see more opportunities for longer battles and micro. Harass would be less devastating as well and gives new players more time to react. Granted I think harass/drops are an integral part of strategy and should be rewarded, but in lower level play a medivac loaded with 8 marines has the opportunity to win the game. That said, I love them game the way it is now!
|
Definitely too fast. When I watch and play low economy games where every unit is important to the bitter end, I find those kinds of games can be more interesting than the standard macro games.
|
On April 15 2016 21:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 20:42 Gwavajuice wrote:On April 15 2016 19:20 deacon.frost wrote:
You are not supposed to train to enjoy a game unless you want to be a pro. This game requires training for being a FUCKING GOLD PLAYER! Get better isn't an aswer to someone who doesn't have the time and just wants to enjoy the game... never mind, why am I trying? Seriously, I think it's about being at ease with yourself. If you don't have time and can't train, you can have fun in silver league, you have silly games you do your silly strats you execute them like crap but it's fun nonetheless. you sound like you'd want to be good without putting the effort to be good, that's will get you extremely frustrated. If you don't want to try hard, just don't and enjoy silver league or team games fun. It's cool to be bad at something when you're ok with it. But more importantly, I personnally don't see any game in the world where you don't actually train one way or another. The least you do is to get just a tad better than last time you played. Trying to get better is the core of any game for me. If I don't want to get better, I just usually don't play at all. I mean, the bolded part is your personal assessment of fun. I personally do not like these kinds of games. As you say, they are silly. I don't have to play an RTS if all I want to do is micromanage a reaper while stockpiling money, I can just play a game that is actually designed to just micromanage a single character/unit and it's going to be lightyears better fit for that type of gameplay.
The point isn't to make the game what it isn't mean to be by playing not optimal (like only microing the reaper), as you said if you wanna play a game where you only have to micro one unit sc2 probably wouldn't be the best option.
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay.
People saying sc2 is so different in that regard are wrong imo, in sc2 the mechanics are more demanding (but that's what i would think people actually enjoy about rts games) so there's the main difference i guess.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 15 2016 20:42 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 19:20 deacon.frost wrote:
You are not supposed to train to enjoy a game unless you want to be a pro. This game requires training for being a FUCKING GOLD PLAYER! Get better isn't an aswer to someone who doesn't have the time and just wants to enjoy the game... never mind, why am I trying? Seriously, I think it's about being at ease with yourself. If you don't have time and can't train, you can have fun in silver league, you have silly games you do your silly strats you execute them like crap but it's fun nonetheless. you sound like you'd want to be good without putting the effort to be good, that's will get you extremely frustrated. If you don't want to try hard, just don't and enjoy silver league or team games fun. It's cool to be bad at something when you're ok with it. But more importantly, I personnally don't see any game in the world where you don't actually train one way or another. The least you do is to get just a tad better than last time you played. Trying to get better is the core of any game for me. If I don't want to get better, I just usually don't play at all.
That's not right.
I want a game that is not a frustrating. Right now the game is about do a mistake -> lose a game. One. Fucking. Mistake.
Oh, you missed an oracle, game over, man.
Oh, you missed a mine drop, game over, man.
Oh, you don't have here a pylon, let me place a liberator there(though this is probably not that game ending damage).
Oh, you wasn't watching your army for a split second, game over, man!
You can lose the game so fast with 1 mistake. And then there;s no way to get back. I could count my comebacks on 1 hand.
I don't want to get better for free, I want to have a chance to make a mistake. RIght now I don't have that opportunity thus the game is frustrating. And that is the reason why I stopped playing. The game needs to slower down on lower levels. But no, Blizzard buffed everything so it is faster(even the creep spreads/receids faster now  ) WTF?! The game was hard before and now it is only harder and less enjoyable. I was awed by templar openings from Parting. I was enjoying them so much I was playing ONLY them. I am bad at the game but I was thrilled. Compare to nowadays PvT...
(BTW I am not gold neither silver)
Edit> Maybe that's just me and my never ending love of Protoss, because I hate adepts, oracles, MSC, pylon overcharge, disruptor and WP pick up range aaand DT speed buff. Also tempests.
Basically the game is frustrating and they destroyed Protoss. Damn, I hate Blizzard and its design team. Hope they are not reading this.
|
the "stim attack move win" thing only applies when you're playing someone who has far inferior macro to you, which is going to happen inevitably when using a matchmaker that ranks players against each other. but strategy absolutely certainly plays a big role in the game if you're playing against someone of comparable mechanical skill. strategy and ingenuity have played a role in lots of my games. at the same time, i've also won games because my opponent didn't know how to build things. that's just RTS. has nothing to do with speed
|
All people who find sc2 too fast. Are you sure you want to play 1vs1 competitive ladder? Are you not looking for campaign esque gameplay with long drawn out games just like vs AI or like in age of empire (even age of empire has fast strats/rushs). Even when sc2 was slower, as long as it has an impossible skill ceiling, you will always complain about something.
I sometimes think you guys play the wrong game or the wrong mode. The game gives you a certain number of tasks which sets the skill ceiling. If we reduce that number, so that everyone can do everything, then skill has no meaning. Also it wouldnt be fair for fast players.
The only way to make the game slower without reducing skill ceiling is to offer more tasks in the same time period. In that case fast players will be even faster. Not sure if you really want that. The community doesnt like a slow game. Wol at release was slow, blizzard made it faster because we wanted it. Second proof is the popularity of fastest maps.
Why are you playing a game that you think is too fast for you? If you like you can play a custom game with someone at your level and change the speed to slow. But from my experience 1vs1 is not what you want and you arent alone. Most of them play just the campaign or co-op.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 15 2016 22:57 todespolka wrote:
All people who find sc2 too fast. Are you sure you want to play 1vs1 competitive ladder? Are you not looking for campaign esque gameplay with long drawn out games a la vs ki or like age of empire (even age of empire has fast strats).
I am fine with WoL "speed". I would be kinda fine with a slightly slower HotS. I find LotV more frustrating than HotS, more volatile and faster. And I want to play against real people, AI has, in the end, the same behavior in some states and that's quite boring.
Honestly, I think that rebalanced WoL would be awesome, but that's me, maybe I am too old for this stuff
|
The game gets much more strategic over a series of map picks, and I view it as each map offers and approach or general strategy (depending on race matchup) for each player to take.
For example, this map I try rush build if my position is close, this map I spawned far so 3 base expand before hatch, etc.
During the game there are many points which you need to make a strategic response to what you scout from the other player in response to how they are playing.
Do I play all-in or reactively to another player? That in and of itself is a strategic choice.
Personally, I would much rather play 3 15 minute games where I explore a completely different approach each game, rather than one long 45 minute game using just 1 overall approach to the game strategy.
besides... who got time for 1 hour games 0_0
|
On April 15 2016 22:48 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 20:42 Gwavajuice wrote:On April 15 2016 19:20 deacon.frost wrote:
You are not supposed to train to enjoy a game unless you want to be a pro. This game requires training for being a FUCKING GOLD PLAYER! Get better isn't an aswer to someone who doesn't have the time and just wants to enjoy the game... never mind, why am I trying? Seriously, I think it's about being at ease with yourself. If you don't have time and can't train, you can have fun in silver league, you have silly games you do your silly strats you execute them like crap but it's fun nonetheless. you sound like you'd want to be good without putting the effort to be good, that's will get you extremely frustrated. If you don't want to try hard, just don't and enjoy silver league or team games fun. It's cool to be bad at something when you're ok with it. But more importantly, I personnally don't see any game in the world where you don't actually train one way or another. The least you do is to get just a tad better than last time you played. Trying to get better is the core of any game for me. If I don't want to get better, I just usually don't play at all. That's not right. I want a game that is not a frustrating. Right now the game is about do a mistake -> lose a game. One. Fucking. Mistake. Oh, you missed an oracle, game over, man. Oh, you missed a mine drop, game over, man. Oh, you don't have here a pylon, let me place a liberator there(though this is probably not that game ending damage). Oh, you wasn't watching your army for a split second, game over, man! You can lose the game so fast with 1 mistake. And then there;s no way to get back. I could count my comebacks on 1 hand. I don't want to get better for free, I want to have a chance to make a mistake. RIght now I don't have that opportunity thus the game is frustrating. And that is the reason why I stopped playing. The game needs to slower down on lower levels. But no, Blizzard buffed everything so it is faster(even the creep spreads/receids faster now ) WTF?! The game was hard before and now it is only harder and less enjoyable. I was awed by templar openings from Parting. I was enjoying them so much I was playing ONLY them. I am bad at the game but I was thrilled. Compare to nowadays PvT... (BTW I am not gold neither silver) Edit> Maybe that's just me and my never ending love of Protoss, because I hate adepts, oracles, MSC, pylon overcharge, disruptor and WP pick up range aaand DT speed buff. Also tempests. Basically the game is frustrating and they destroyed Protoss. Damn, I hate Blizzard and its design team. Hope they are not reading this.
This point I actually agree with, but it doesn't have anything to do with game speed, imo. Someone else made the comment, (I believe BisuDagger) that dps should be lowered for the units. Deathball fights use to last 10 seconds tops and the game was all decided there.
I definitely think games should be decided on a series of small fights the player wins, more of a tug of war back and forth.
Which... LOTV actually does better than HOTS or WOL.
At least that is my experience, but I haven't played for a long time now. My experience of legacy of the void, this that skirmishes happened more frequently and comebacks seemed more possible then they ever were in WOL and HOTS.
In those games, the feeling was you died if you got behind by a couple workers.
And even worse, the games lasted maybe 45-1 hour. So yea, when I invest 1 hour of my time to lose because I made 1 misclick in a 10 second fight... The frustration was REALLY HIGH.
In LOTV, if I lose to oracle its only 15 min, the loss doesn't feel remotely close to as bad as it did in WOL.
|
On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay.
Exactly, the competitive part of your argument is the one that is important here. It applies to any competitive game out there. But so far nothing of that tells me why I would be playing SC2 over any other competitive game. So that's the question: What makes me play SC2 over any other game?
And I think the major weakness SC2 has is that its unique selling points - strategy, compositions, playstyles - are behind a glass skill ceiling. Noobs can see them performed by better players, but will struggle to get anywhere close to them. Which is why they turn away and play games in which the unique selling point is accessible. That this in no way compromises with being a competitive high-skill game can be seen by LoL, DotA, CS:Go etc, games that sell the core unique gameplay to everyone, yet have a crazy highlevel proscene.
SC2 fails here. The game is has been catered to a hardcore and proscene alone and mainly through speed, instead of thinking about ways that make the core gameplay accessible and then finding tools that make it hard and deep enough for professionals to differentiate.
On April 15 2016 22:57 todespolka wrote:
All people who find sc2 too fast. Are you sure you want to play 1vs1 competitive ladder? Are you not looking for campaign esque gameplay with long drawn out games just like vs AI or like in age of empire (even age of empire has fast strats/rushs). Even when sc2 was slower, as long as it has an impossible skill ceiling, you will always complain about something.
I sometimes think you guys play the wrong game or the wrong mode. The game gives you a certain number of tasks which sets the skill ceiling. If we reduce that number, so that everyone can do everything, then skill has no meaning. Also it wouldnt be fair for fast players.
The only way to make the game slower without reducing skill ceiling is to offer more tasks in the same time period. In that case fast players will be even faster. Not sure if you really want that. The community doesnt like a slow game. Wol at release was slow, blizzard made it faster because we wanted it. Second proof is the popularity of fastest maps.
Even if sc2 were slower. You will complain about something else.
These skill ceiling arguments get thrown around a lot in this context. I haven't seen someone play perfect WoL and WoL had a much slower pace. Even HotS had a much slower pace and I haven't seen someone play perfect HotS either. Dunno why this gets brought up again and again as if the current iteration of SC2 was always on the verge of being too easy for pros. And even WoL was already faster than any MobA out there. But MobA's understood that skill can come in various forms, making everything too fast to manage is just one way to do so.
|
On April 15 2016 23:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay. Exactly, the competitive part of your argument is the one that is important here. It applies to any competitive game out there. But so far nothing of that tells me why I would be playing SC2 over any other competitive game. So that's the question: What makes me play SC2 over any other game? And I think the major weakness SC2 has is that its unique selling points - strategy, compositions, playstyles - are behind a glass skill ceiling. Noobs can see them performed by better players, but will struggle to get anywhere close to them. Which is why they turn away and play games in which the unique selling point is accessible. That this in no way compromises with being a competitive high-skill game can be seen by LoL, DotA, CS:Go etc, games that sell the core unique gameplay to everyone, yet have a crazy highlevel proscene. SC2 fails here. The game is has been catered to a hardcore and proscene alone and mainly through speed, instead of thinking about ways that make the core gameplay accessible and then finding tools that make it hard and deep enough for professionals to differentiate.
See i don't agree with this all that much. The main selling point for sc2 is that it's an rts. People who like rts games like it for different reasons, but mainly i would imagine for the strategy, multitasking (macro/micro) and 1vs1 gameplay.
You saying this is behind a "glass skill ceiling" doesn't do it for me. You can do different strategies at silver level. You can do everything the pros do, just a lot worse (but as i said before, it doesn't matter because the matchmaking will give you opponents close to your skill)
You don't need 200 apm to have fun with sc2, you also can play it with 50 and be happy in silver league. Just as you can play csgo without having the perfect spray control or lol without having perfect cs.
The only difference might be that in sc2 there aren't a lot of new players which could play against each other to begin with, at that point the matchmaking kinda fails obviously.
If we are talking about attracting the masses to play sc2, sure then the general lvl of mechanics might be a problem (aka you kinda need to know all the hotkeys)
But i still think that the masses will never have fun with a game where multitasking is required, so i think it's more about rts as a genre and not so much about the specific design choices. Even though that could help a bit.
|
On April 15 2016 15:54 RoomOfMush wrote:
Well, that is my opinion on game speed.
There is games with different game speeds. Some people like it faster and some like it slower. You should pick the game you feel comfortable with.
You dont like the speed in a particular game? Doesnt mean there is nobody who likes it how it is. For this reason it comes to you to fix it with either step I enumerated in my first post.
he didnt ask what he should do about anything he asked what people think of the current gamespeed.
|
On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul wrote:
When I play, I dun really see any opportunity to really be 'strategic,' yknow?
Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win?
Or even if it does go to late game, I'm just left in a trance where I'm just pressing buttons until I win, trying to keep up production at max.
Thoughts?
No.
|
On April 15 2016 15:54 RoomOfMush wrote:
Well, that is my opinion on game speed.
There is games with different game speeds. Some people like it faster and some like it slower. You should pick the game you feel comfortable with.
You dont like the speed in a particular game? Doesnt mean there is nobody who likes it how it is. For this reason it comes to you to fix it with either step I enumerated in my first post.
he didnt ask what he should do about anything he asked what people think of the current gamespeed.
on topic: I think its fine as it is. if it were slower it would have to have some other mechanical hindrance e.g worse pathing
|
Mechanics gate strategic aspect of SC2 imo. Having good mechanics can get you very far up top of the ladder and you need even better mechanics to climb more.
I am semi old, not have time to get faster & precise nor have the skill beforehand so I don't play SC.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
The game has put much more emphasis on expanding constantly and multitasking. I'm not a big fan of that direction
|
On April 15 2016 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 23:46 Big J wrote:On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay. Exactly, the competitive part of your argument is the one that is important here. It applies to any competitive game out there. But so far nothing of that tells me why I would be playing SC2 over any other competitive game. So that's the question: What makes me play SC2 over any other game? And I think the major weakness SC2 has is that its unique selling points - strategy, compositions, playstyles - are behind a glass skill ceiling. Noobs can see them performed by better players, but will struggle to get anywhere close to them. Which is why they turn away and play games in which the unique selling point is accessible. That this in no way compromises with being a competitive high-skill game can be seen by LoL, DotA, CS:Go etc, games that sell the core unique gameplay to everyone, yet have a crazy highlevel proscene. SC2 fails here. The game is has been catered to a hardcore and proscene alone and mainly through speed, instead of thinking about ways that make the core gameplay accessible and then finding tools that make it hard and deep enough for professionals to differentiate. See i don't agree with this all that much. The main selling point for sc2 is that it's an rts. People who like rts games like it for different reasons, but mainly i would imagine for the strategy, multitasking (macro/micro) and 1vs1 gameplay. You saying this is behind a "glass skill ceiling" doesn't do it for me. You can do different strategies at silver level. You can do everything the pros do, just a lot worse (but as i said before, it doesn't matter because the matchmaking will give you opponents close to your skill) You don't need 200 apm to have fun with sc2, you also can play it with 50 and be happy in silver league. Just as you can play csgo without having the perfect spray control or lol without having perfect cs. The only difference might be that in sc2 there aren't a lot of new players which could play against each other to begin with, at that point the matchmaking kinda fails obviously. If we are talking about attracting the masses to play sc2, sure then the general lvl of mechanics might be a problem (aka you kinda need to know all the hotkeys) But i still think that the masses will never have fun with a game where multitasking is required, so i think it's more about rts as a genre and not so much about the specific design choices. Even though that could help a bit.
But those are the specific desing choices. That's what we basically understand under phrases like "faster pace in LotV than in WoL". For example in WoL you could make a turret ring and be eventually safe against drops. You made a strategic decision and investment and you got a pay off if your opponent still tried... or you got punished by your opponent making the proper strategical decisions against investments that he doesn't have to run into.
Then they tuned up medivac speed and muta regeneration/speed and gave out other similar buffs and nerfs to force you into multitasking strategies. Mechplay and Swarm Host play were made weak so that you have to play the fast-paced styles. Many underused units don't get more stability with combat stats and better counterrelations so that they get more costefficient and useful, but they get faster, so that instead of having fights and getting numbers right, you get rewarded for lots of hit-and-run strategies. Units like adepts or new swarm hosts have been designed to bypass defenses, so you have to rely on multitasking more and more. Half the game is about popping out of the fog of war and quickly killing the opponent where he is not. For worse players this means they just die a lot randomly, because there are just no safety nets besides being incredibly good at the game, which is the only way you can pay enough attention and react/position with units all the time on time.
|
On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul wrote:
When I play, I dun really see any opportunity to really be 'strategic,' yknow?
Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win?
Or even if it does go to late game, I'm just left in a trance where I'm just pressing buttons until I win, trying to keep up production at max.
Thoughts?
I kind of feel like this is an issue yes. I can see why you would think that. "Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win?" The answer is that you do what you enjoy. If you look at high level play and its not your style its fine play what you like. Realize that there is actual strategy and talk about strategy. If you just play the mechanics and game speed don't actually feel like it's a problem. Even in my league I still lose to much slower and mechanically weaker players because of good strategy. There is no secondary casual ladder. I've been an advocate for a casual ladder for some time with a few more maps, more vetoes, game speed options, game mode options and queuing in many queues like there is in cs:go or Dota.
Aside, personally i don't find the game speed to be an issue myself and even feel faster is kind of slow sometimes. Like PvZ, i feel like i'm just waiting for the right engagement to occur. Like I play multiple RTS games, not just starcraft like coh2, warhammer40k, grey goo, and total war. sometimes when i'm stressed i boot up warcraft 3 or warhammer 40k because i cannot play at full speed. I feel that there is a lot of positional strategy, even more than exists in other games, and the game requires much more attention to setting up before and engagement to manage the micro. In contrast to other rts, its not a build units and keep improving them as you go so that the armies stay small, but still improve in terms of power. If you are brand new playing against someone who plays rts for 10 plus years, its like playing against a I suggest playing co-op customs at slower game speed. There are many guides on how to increase the mechanical competence. If you feel that the pace of the micro and multitasking is to high, please realize that is what makes starcraft 2 the strongest game for competitve styles. Its strategy and execution. The skill cap is extremely high and you have to make decisions much faster than you are used to from playing other games.
The super fast pace, making 300 decisions in a matter of 8-10 minutes that starcraft is, may be too much to try and make all the decisions at once. I think you are making it hard on yourself trying to make too many decisions to be honest. starcraft is a game that takes a few thousand hours to get to a high level of play, but can be played by anyone. If you lose to a mechancally easier strategy such as mass marines, you might consider trying to figure out how to beat it with fewer decisions. If you don't play to have this pace, starcraft may not be something that you play a ton, but can watch and appreciate. I highly recommend warhammer 40k and company of heroes for a game that requires much fewer decisions in an equal time frame to play.
So, Yes, I agree the game speed is an issue for newer players, and there is no casual ladder. As an alternative, play coop for a bit until you feel better about the speed and can really focus on different units. It has multiple game modes and plays at a much slower speed. Feel free to message me if you need someone to talk to. I do coaching and consulting. It depends on what the player wants to get out of it i can go over some of the ways to play low apm and still win with strategy.
|
On April 16 2016 00:20 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 15 2016 23:46 Big J wrote:On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay. Exactly, the competitive part of your argument is the one that is important here. It applies to any competitive game out there. But so far nothing of that tells me why I would be playing SC2 over any other competitive game. So that's the question: What makes me play SC2 over any other game? And I think the major weakness SC2 has is that its unique selling points - strategy, compositions, playstyles - are behind a glass skill ceiling. Noobs can see them performed by better players, but will struggle to get anywhere close to them. Which is why they turn away and play games in which the unique selling point is accessible. That this in no way compromises with being a competitive high-skill game can be seen by LoL, DotA, CS:Go etc, games that sell the core unique gameplay to everyone, yet have a crazy highlevel proscene. SC2 fails here. The game is has been catered to a hardcore and proscene alone and mainly through speed, instead of thinking about ways that make the core gameplay accessible and then finding tools that make it hard and deep enough for professionals to differentiate. See i don't agree with this all that much. The main selling point for sc2 is that it's an rts. People who like rts games like it for different reasons, but mainly i would imagine for the strategy, multitasking (macro/micro) and 1vs1 gameplay. You saying this is behind a "glass skill ceiling" doesn't do it for me. You can do different strategies at silver level. You can do everything the pros do, just a lot worse (but as i said before, it doesn't matter because the matchmaking will give you opponents close to your skill) You don't need 200 apm to have fun with sc2, you also can play it with 50 and be happy in silver league. Just as you can play csgo without having the perfect spray control or lol without having perfect cs. The only difference might be that in sc2 there aren't a lot of new players which could play against each other to begin with, at that point the matchmaking kinda fails obviously. If we are talking about attracting the masses to play sc2, sure then the general lvl of mechanics might be a problem (aka you kinda need to know all the hotkeys) But i still think that the masses will never have fun with a game where multitasking is required, so i think it's more about rts as a genre and not so much about the specific design choices. Even though that could help a bit. But those are the specific desing choices. That's what we basically understand under phrases like "faster pace in LotV than in WoL". For example in WoL you could make a turret ring and be eventually safe against drops. You made a strategic decision and investment and you got a pay off if your opponent still tried... or you got punished by your opponent making the proper strategical decisions against investments that he doesn't have to run into. Then they tuned up medivac speed and muta regeneration/speed and gave out other similar buffs and nerfs to force you into multitasking strategies. Mechplay and Swarm Host play were made weak so that you have to play the fast-paced styles. Many underused units don't get more stability with combat stats and better counterrelations so that they get more costefficient and useful, but they get faster, so that instead of having fights and getting numbers right, you get rewarded for lots of hit-and-run strategies. Units like adepts or new swarm hosts have been designed to bypass defenses, so you have to rely on multitasking more and more. Half the game is about popping out of the fog of war and quickly killing the opponent where he is not. For worse players this means they just die a lot randomly, because there are just no safety nets besides being incredibly good at the game, which is the only way you can pay enough attention and react/position with units all the time on time.
For worse players that means that they play against worse players who also don't have the multitasking necessary to do these kind of things, or if they try it they do it inefficiently.
I was more talking about the absolut general kind of multitasking in an rts, controlling multiple units at once, the decision between micro and macro, these things. Basically what is understood as rts gameplay.
In mobas, csgo, fighting games, etc you don't have this. You control one unit alone and be done with it. You don't feel overwhelmed ever by having to control at two places at once, or macroing while pushing or similar stuff.
This is imo the main reason people (the masses) don't play a game like sc2 and no matter how much you make the controls easier, as long as this aspect of multitasking is still in the game people in general won't like to play it.
That's how i see it atm.
You surely could design the game less punishing though and that would help a bit, sure. I don't think that is the reason casuals don't play the game though. So yeah i guess in a way i agree with you, even though i don't think this is important for the lowest leagues all that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
