Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 16

---

On March 17 2012 08:11 Beakyboo wrote:
I can understand the enthusiasm but I can't help but feel people are getting excited a bit prematurely.

---

---

On March 17 2012 08:07 Marduce wrote:
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.

In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.

In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)

I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.

Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.

Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.

You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)

If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'?

---

---

On March 17 2012 08:14 ProxyKnoxy wrote:


The last thing SC2 needs is to be made easier. Less people play, yes, but equally its viewership is growing. This change would make it better spectator-wise as well.

---

---

On March 17 2012 08:07 Marduce wrote:
This feels like a really simple way to kind of "give breadth to the game" as you so eloquently put it - however I have a couple of questions for the OP, or any other proponent.

In short, this is a way to lengthen out the game. To encourage more back and forth, by creating more opportunity and incentive to do so.

In theory, it works, but I see a potential problem. To do this requires nothing less than total execution (i.e. the new standard for map economics - nobody is going to want to deal with the intracacies of balancing for both, as well as learning strats for both, as well as competing on both.)

I would suggest that this creates very little 'NEW' opportunity, but rather, just mostly extends and inflates already existing windows for harassments, small skirmished, and timing attacks.

Therefore, in simple terms, for the most part you are just having everything take longer. The progression you make each minute, economically and technologically, is reduced - as you stated further complicating the game.

Starcraft is currently in decline. You believe it's dying because it's getting boring, I believe it's dying because it's too hard for your average gamer.

You talk about how Blizzard's psychological approach may be contributing to the decline of SC2 players, but what if it is the difficulty? A recent poll on TL showed people who quit quit because that the game is too stressful (i.e. not fun which means an insufficient amount of positive reinforcement, or winning, compared to the effort put in)

If you further complexify the game so you need more bases, when WE KNOW that the problems plaguing more than half of SC2 players are insufficient macro skills (which can frustrate them to the point of quitting), how many more players are we going to lose. If we make this game so complicated that noobs can't play, what will happen to the game then? Do you think that a small dedicated hardcore community can sustain everything we have today? Will there be enough viewers in streams (player streams, tourney streams, etc.) to get sponsors? Will there be enough sponsors to support teams? Will there be enough teams to fill tournaments? Does it matter to you if it is too complex for the average player, or is it only viability as an ultimate competetive platform which matters to you? Where do you draw the line of 'too complicated'?

---

---

On March 17 2012 08:31 Falling wrote:
Wow, that's very detailed.
It really was intentional on Blizzard's part. I can't remember the interview/ Battle Report. But they were talking about getting out of the early game really fast with increased resource rate collection because early game was 'boring.'

Slowing down resource collection actually helps with another problem- early game scouting and rapid army tech switches. It's a lot harder to swing back and forth between army compositions when resource collection is down.

And certainly, BGH and Fastest Possible were extremely popular maps in BW. But should those be the proleague maps/ ladder maps? Let those ones dominate Custom games.

I think the depth problem is a bigger deal, but the breadth could be a significant issue too.

---