|
On November 24 2011 13:53 Spicy_Curry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 13:47 TheKefka wrote:On November 24 2011 13:37 FoxyMayhem wrote:
I'm not suggesting we make SCII more casual, except for the introduction of a Fusion Ladder, where army control is assinged to one player and production/construction is assigned to another. The players will still feel like they're playing a part of starcraft, all the strategy descussions and pro matches will still be relevant to their experience, but it's less overwhelming and more socially rewarding than the current ladder systems. The point is to attract those who can't or won't dedicate so much time to the brutal experience of 1v1, but who will play with their friends. You know, to grow SCII eSports. But you don't get what I mean. We shouldn't promote stuff like that because the game SHOULD feel hard.It should be frustrate people when they play it. Because when they go and watch a MLG they will appreciate that much more what the pros are doing. And the thing that you are suggestion,splitting army control and resource management.That's basically 2v2 for you right there. When you log onto ICCUP and play a few games you become mind boggled of how it is possible that someone can play this game like Bisu plays. When I play ladder and than go watch Huk's stream,there are some smart things here and there that he is doing and refined builds,but,there is no overwhelming feeling of superiority that I feel towards him. When I watch Dirk Nowitzki land a fade away jumper after another,I feel like"HOLY SHIT". + Show Spoiler +GOD DAMN YOU LOCKOUT;GOD DAMN YOU!! When I see Naniwa do a blink stalker +2 build,Its cool but,not the awe inspiring feeling. What sc2 really needs in order to grow and for people to take it as a serious Esport is beyond just simple cosmetics and just catching the eye of the mainstream public. + Show Spoiler + I get the holy crap feeling when Naniwa lays the sickest forcefields and storms the army ^_^
Meh,whatever.Forget about it.
|
The RTS genre is a niche market due to their complexity. Consequently, it's really hard for new players to embrace games like Starcraft. Nothing new.
LoL is a lot simpler than HoN and it's other predecessors. A lot of players can relate to the MMO feel it has, so it isn't completely foreign to them on a molecular level even though there is a lot more to the game than meets the eye.
Anyway I will address each individual point you brought up:
1) I'm going to turn the tables on this one: the heroes are the actual players/personalities themselves. What about the euphoria you get when your favorite team/player wins a title?
Your rebuttal,"If you don't know who any of the players are and their background then where is the invested interest?"
Why of course! Goes back to what I said earlier about the depth of the game and the fact it is a niche market. Just another barrier to entry.
2) Blizzard is about to implement these banners/major tournament streams in B.Net 2.0 sometime after HotS. There was a thread on it. That and we're starting to see companies like YouTube jump on the eSports bandwagon.
3) I believe I addressed this one already. Sorry it's a niche market. With that said, we have plenty of avenues to get the message out now compared to the past. Barcraft is growing steadily. Newspapers, magazines, etc. are providing us with more coverage. It will grow at it's own pace. We just have to keep on doing what we're doing by supporting eSports.
|
Blizzard needs to make Battle.net more social:
- Clan support/ Clan wars
- Live observing
- Replay with friends
- Embedded tournament streams
Also they need to make a way to play Starcraft without laddering. Ladder is way too intimating for most people, look at the IGN, Gametrailers reviews for example, they all mention how intimidating ladder is.
One thing they can do is make unranked auto-match making, there are probably much more ways to make SC2 fun without adding the ladder aspect.
|
|
|
You've got that right, Kefka, we need a Hero. That would do world of good for eSports. But I have some questions for you:
We shouldn't promote stuff like that because the game SHOULD feel hard.It should be frustrate people when they play it.
Because when they go and watch a MLG they will appreciate that much more what the pros are doing.
Let's say there is a Fusion Ladder implemented. When you go to watch a 1v1 pro match and see a single player doing the job of two people, and doing it better than them combined? Doesn't that sound more superhuman? It's a metric scrubs who don't understand how bad they are can appreciate ("he's better than two people combined!" versus "His macro is perfectly tight, allowing him to execute this ideal timing in the current PvZ metagame". See, newbs can't appreciate the second, but the can the first.)
That's basically 2v2 for you right there.
It's not, for a lot of reasons that I explained: 1) no direct competition, 2) dedicated roles, 3) teamwork psychology, 4) social reward. Feel free to give that part a closer look for the break down on why they mean so much.
When you log onto ICCUP and play a few games you become mind boggled of how it is possible that someone can play this game like Bisu plays.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
So yeah, I agree that a superstar would do worlds of good. But I think that's only one tool in the arsenal to grow eSports. Engaging the more casual or social audiences like the article mentioned is something Blizzard has control over, not something that can only be hoped for. It also represents huge growth potential. I have friends in this demographic that I want to see in eSports. I want to see them with us, a part of this community.
@Starstruck: It is a niche market, but it doesn't have to be so extremely niche. I object to dumbing down SC2 as well, but I don't think this type of team splitting is actually dumbing it down. It's a different flavor, and more welcoming. And those who play it will know that they don't even compare to the 1v1 guys. But it gets them inside the community and, again, eSports 1v1 is still relevant to them, since the Fusion Ladder is a simulation of that.
Is this type of task splitting really dumbing it down? If it is, is this type of "dumbing it down" actually a negative thing? What are its drawbacks?
|
SC2 is too expensive as it is right now. They need to have a full multiplayer version for $20, campaign not included.
|
That would be detrimental. It would become two different games and there's a reason why Blizzard uses data from every league as they say. RTS games aren't meant for casual gamers. Blizzard dumbed down SC2 enough. No argument there.
Heck, player records don't even show up anymore yet some people still cower in fear by the word Ladder. A system which tries to pair you up with players of similar skill. Besides that, Laddering isn't a players only option. Julia Childress is a great example, "Oh before I played SC2 I used to play BW UMS games all the time."
On that note, look at the solution you gave:
We have several UMS versions of that back in Brood War: one would be the builder, the other would control the units, which was very popular. To expand on that idea, Brood War also had a team melee setting.
In reality, SC2 incorporates all of these features you described already once a player familiarizes themselves with the U.I. (on a little aside: team games just aren't the same anymore, but that's a discussion for a different day).
The mode you described is unnecessary as it's already there.
The UMS mode is a total mess at the moment.
Players don't know where to turn and unfortunately Blizzard messed up big when they released it. If anything Blizzard has to make it more user friendly still.
|
There are plenty of fantastic custom games available that aren't played because they're not implemented. Whle the mode I described may be available, is it getting into the hands of the casual customer that it will benifit? It's all about distributing it. These are the people who don't know to go digging, and that's why I think it should be a ladder.
I agree that UMS need to continue to be improved, no doubt there.
At the top of the post you mention how it might split the game, where you replying to me? If so, can you explain how?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36900 Posts
SC2, LoL, both my top games currently. I would say SC2 is just more exciting though. The battle scenes in SC are just too epic to overcome
|
Btw I don't think your point bout a more casual aspect of the game is valid.
Look at dota, its relation(difficulty wise) to lol is exactly like the one between bw and sc2 and yet it's the most popular game in the world.
|
LoL is not a fun game IMO, it's just free to play
|
What happened to the imbedded WC3 tournament system? Why don't we have that, it's 2011 already.
How hard is it to code in SC2 tournament brackets? It should be so simple to update with match history already on SC2. I may be a little unfair to the developers, but it's definitely possible, but there hasn't been an initiative.
I just wish Blizzard focuses on the present than looking to the future of SC2. Sometimes what their players need isn't provided in another expansion, but improving on the little things that can satisfy us for the meanwhile. The new battle.net hasn't really proved itself to be better than what I've been accustomed to for a good portion of my life on BW/WC3.
|
Thus I propose splitting the tasks of macro and micro.
One player controls attacking units, the other controls production, gathering, and construction.
Starcraft I already technically had this - It was called "Team Melee" I think. It was where you shared control with a player by default.
Technically both games are similar in that you can just play team games instead. You don't have to micro as much (or worry about scouting) in team gates.
On November 24 2011 17:53 Steveling wrote:
Btw I don't think your point bout a more casual aspect of the game is valid.
Look at dota, its relation(difficulty wise) to lol is exactly like the one between bw and sc2 and yet it's the most popular game in the world.
Agreed.
Casual. LoL is. Call of Duty is. Halo is. Notice, all of these titles are outstandingly successful? Because of the casual gameplay, they're accessible. I honestly don't know if I would be in eSports if I didn't have as much time to dedicate to it. This is the biggest crux of the matter, is it not? A paradox: a game is either Deep and Small, or Large and Shallow. Right?
Casual + accessibility isn't the correct term IMO.
It's the genre.
RTS games generally aren't as much fun as FPS or MOBA like DotA at least in my opinion (even as a somewhat regular RTS player).
Problems with the RTS genre:
1. RTS isn't focused on team play. Typically 1v1. DotA, Battlefield, LoL, etc all focus on team play rather than 1v1.
Sure you can play 4v4 in Starcraft II but the game isn't focused on that (balance isn't good either). Also again Starcraft II by itself is less fun (maybe even boring) especially in 4v4.
4v4 does not have that much variety (at least the times I tried it). There are workers rushes, a few cheeses, rush to Void Ray, etc which does not compare to the amount of variety DotA has (DotA has 80+ heroes + several items. Each game [even if you play the same hero and the same build] is usually very different).
2. Lack of variety in team play (and also sometimes in 1v1 too). What keeps DotA, LoL, etc fresh is the variety and plenty of player options. Each game will be different which means game will become less stale.
I know there are a lot of builds, different match ups, etc with SC2 but they do not compare to the variety of DotA (for example). I know in a lot of games I feel like I'm playing basically the same thing over and over sometimes.
(Hey we know how the same builds are done over and over especially if you play the leader.) I play Random in SC2 but even then the game sometimes feel a bit lacking in variety or options I can do.
Actually I guess in a way RTS genre doesn't "always" encourage *variety or player options. RTS (SC1 and SC2) can be "reactive" in some cases which means that a lot of times there may not be a lot of true options the player can pick.
*Generally people scout, see the build they do, and usually just pick 1-3 builds that work well against that player. Rinse and repeat for every game and every matchup. If you don't pick the right build (try going Carriers on Protoss for example against Terran >.>) then you'll probably lose badly.
In DotA or LoL (however), you can just pick any hero or chose any build you want. None of it has to be reactive (unless it's a competition with all heroes known before hand that is).
Even if it's reactive, there's dozens and dozens of options you can pick. Multiple heroes can counter another hero (for example).
In SC2 maybe one or two builds can counter one build. That makes it stales sometimes.
3. Lack of "addiction" element ("not" counting addiction to getting better skill-wise). DotA features leveling up or for CoD weapon unlocks. This reminds me of Natural Selection (an FPS/RTS hybrid). The game has two modes - "Classic" (RTS/FPS basically) and "Combat" (FPS/RPG).
More examples:+ Show Spoiler +
At NS's prime, Combat was played way more than Classic. Why? Well because it featured leveling elemnts.
This also reminds me of Counter-Strike. After a while several mods which introduced leveling aspects to Counter-Strike were introduced (WC3 mod, BF2 flags mod, Pokemon mod, etc).
The rate those mods are played rival that of regular Counter-Strike. Heck if you take out all the PC Cafe CS games, the mods win in popularity.
Basically Starcraft (or RTS in general) does not have these addiction elements. Warcraft III (and a few other RTS) do have but it's really slow paced (also you typically never got a hero past level 6+ or so in WC3. In DotA nearly every game that has no leavers will be played until level 20+ at least [out of level 25]).
4. Now this is a bit related to the accessibility but that by itself does not equal casual. While I do list this a fourth point, I consider the above three points way more major. If the game is fun, then players will find ways to improve. If they do not find a game fun in the first place, why bother trying to improve?
Now I will list this anyway - Starcraft II can't really be learned well by playing. DotA you can probably play really well even if you never look at guides on websites or so. You can figure things out well IMO in DotA. (I have played DotA on and off since 2005 and I've had no problem learning things or even playing all the heroes.)
Continuing on:
+ Show Spoiler +
The same can be said for FPS. It's easy to learn by playing.
The problem with RTS (and SC2) is the builds. What build do I use? What can I do? Not knowing the builds really hampers your gameplay unlike DotA or FPS games for example.
A person who plays Protoss (during the days when 4gate was the only strategy) will have trouble knowing how to deal with 4gate unless they actively go on websites or look and analyze their replays.
In DotA + FPS you don't really have to do this at all (also if you don't know you can simply ask a teammate).
This has nothing to do with "depth" mind you. Blizzard can make learning builds easy by presenting a build wiki or build guide in Starcraft II (maybe for lower leagues) but they don't. Presenting a build guide or build wiki on the SC2 client wouldn't make it casual or make Starcraft II less deep, it would just make things more accessible and easier to learn.
However again this isn't very important. It is a part of the problem why SC2 isn't as popular but the other three are much more important. If you have fun with the game, you will "want" to get better at it (at least for me and others I know).
Conclusion: Starcraft II (and RTS in general) lacks those three major elements: 1. Team play focus (lots of people like the social aspect + fun aspect of team games). 2. Variety (SC2 is a reactive games sometimes. The person picks Protoss, then you do these builds. The person does this build, you do this build. You don't have as much "true options" as DotA. In Dota you can pick dozens of heroes to counter 1 hero or 1 build for example). 3. And lack of addiction element (leveling up in DotA, obtaining unlocks in FPS games).
For me Starcraft is only fun for the stuff I can pull off. The game itself is okay but it does get boring fast compared to DotA or FPS IMO. FPS like BF or CoD are fun when you play with a lot of other players.
I know what it's like to want to improve my game but for some others that's not for them. Some just want to play a game that's simply fun. Sure maybe get better but just play for fun.
RTS genre in general isn't just as fun as other genres IMO. It's not because RTS is more deep or it's less accessible but because lacks those three major aspects (I listed above) that makes people want to play.
I'm not saying the RTS genre is bad. I'm just saying "unfortunately", RTS lacks those three elements from more popular online video game genres like CoD or DotA that make those games more popular. Depth or accessibility doesn't matter as much as those things.
However just because the RTS genre isn't as popular doesn't mean it's bad. Genre is still popular/alive which is good enough IMO. It's like certain TV shows or genres for example.
Edit - One more thing. RTS genre doesn't as much of the "wow realism!" factor that FPS (well "realistic FPS", not TF or Quake mind you) games have. I don't know but I know a lot of people who keep playing FPS like CoD or BF even if they do bad. Why they do keep playing? Because there are a lot of aspects of the game that impresses them and makes them want to keep playing.
I guess it's neat to feel like you're in a war or battle (without all the pains of wars that is). It's fun for the sake of the simulation sometimes (speaking of which, why the Sims is one of the most popular PC games[it's the top 5 last I checked in games sold]).
Overall I'm not sure exactly what they can do to make RTS more popular without changing it severely. Make the game have more variety? More addiction elements (not counting just getting promoted or anything. It has to do with in game stuff like unlocks or learning new abilities for your hero like DotA)? I'm not sure but at the same time I don't think it's a major problem since RTS (while not as popular as others) is still alive and doing well enough.
|
I would argue that "fun" and "teamwork" are accessibility. At least they are in my mind: anything that makes it easier to engage in the game qualifies as accessibility. But I like your points.
I kind of feel like eSports can provide a substitute for addiction/leveling elements. It's the player stories and epic action that keep you coming back. It's not perfect, and it doesn't keep you playing the game as much necessarily, but I think the football analogy is a good one: most the people who watch it don't play it, and that's okay. So, while it's not an addiction element, it can keep people coming back to eSports. Getting people into it in the first place is the biggest hurtle I see (we're not having difficulty retaining fans like WWE does, as far as I can tell).
I never struggle with feeling like SCII is bland or lacks variety. I might be the minority when sampling the general population, but there is so much you can do in SCII with just one race versus just one race -- banshee marine push in tvt, in base hellion production, quick 3 bases with tanks to secure, Hunter Seeker missile push, two-pronged attacks with medivac drops, two-base bunker siege push, 6 rax marine all-in, 5 rax tech all-in, and that's just openings, once you get to the late game there's a ton of different potential routes. If anything, games like Call of Duty seem to lack variety in comparison. Like I said, perhaps I'm a minority, but SCII feels like it can play different 100 ways in just one matchup let alone all nine -- okay, ZvZ doesn't play out 100 different ways, but hopefully HotS will help that.
As far as teamwork goes, does the Fusion Ladder address that in any way?
I hope they let LotV sit on the back burner for a while after HotS's release and develop the game a bit/lot more. That would be lovely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
HerO
