|
On September 27 2015 06:20 Ansibled wrote: Fun is subjective, the kind of game you want to make isn't Starcraft. There should be frustrating moments.
If people are too frustrated to play 1v1, removing Cloaked Banshees or Oracles isn't going to change that. There will just be new frustrations to whatever you die to instead. That's ok though, the game can be successful without the majority of the playerbase focusing on competitive 1v1 at first. No--fun isn't subjective, it's normative. While not necessarily bound to the natural laws that arise from human nature, they are partially contingent on them, and accurate generalities can be created about what is and is not good game design, likewise what is and is not fun.
Games, properly designed, strive to create as enjoyable, deep, and least frustrating gameplay possible. Indeed, shallow and frustrating often coincide, and enjoyable is the antithesis of frustration.
|
On September 27 2015 11:01 Jaedrik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 06:20 Ansibled wrote: Fun is subjective, the kind of game you want to make isn't Starcraft. There should be frustrating moments.
If people are too frustrated to play 1v1, removing Cloaked Banshees or Oracles isn't going to change that. There will just be new frustrations to whatever you die to instead. That's ok though, the game can be successful without the majority of the playerbase focusing on competitive 1v1 at first. No--fun isn't subjective, it's normative. While not necessarily bound to the natural laws that arise from human nature, they are partially contingent on them, and accurate generalities can be created about what is and is not good game design, likewise what is and is not fun. Games, properly designed, strive to create as enjoyable, deep, and least frustrating gameplay possible. Indeed, shallow and frustrating often coincide, and enjoyable is the antithesis of frustration.
Fun is subjective.
As all emotions are subjective.
Love, fear, etc...
|
Opening a thread by telling me you normally don't contribute to TL, then telling me that TL is wrong, when you obviously aren't contributing to do anything about it...
Dunno. just rubbed me the wrong way. Its like "STAAHP LIKING WHAT I DON"T LIKE"
|
Isn't fun and frustration goes hand in hand (to a certain degree).
I use to suck at ZvT bio play but after being frustrated from losing for so long, i finally figured out the right way to play against it and now it is become more fun.
I ain't to say the game is far from balance. And what's Blizzard making changes to LOTV sometimes you are like, wait where's that coming from?...
If ppl complain about SC as being too hard and then go and play LOL/DOTA or CS and they like it, that's fine. We are entitled to play any games we want. Those games are also not easy to pick up. It might not be as click intensive as SC (at the highest level) but don't tell me they are easy to pick up like candy crush. Maybe CS you can camp and then win a game every now and then.
For newbies, if they wanna have a fun game, just load up 4v4 or do some mono battles. Those are always hilarious. But 1v1 is really where your skills really shines and really the frustration takes place as you learn the game and become better at it.
I wouldn't say TL as an elistist group...perhaps more like a community who is making an effort to become a better player. Yes, it might not be 'fun' all the time but definitely it is rewarding for me when I am becoming a better player.
|
On September 26 2015 07:09 MrInocence wrote: ... There are increasing amounts of frustrations added in WoL, HotS, and LotV.
You should have stopped here, because you hit the nail on the head and your suggestions afterwards just distract from it.
HOTS and LOTV are very poor games when it comes to game design. The Widow is a terribly thought out unit that has a psychological impact on the other player that forces a style of safe play that is bad for an action game ("there may be Widow Mines and they do so much damage that I cannot advance until I can see them"). The number of units they hit do is also unpredictable. The result is players win or lose games based on interactions that cannot be reliably repeated.
And that is awful.
As other games have moved to clarify interactions and remove unpredictability so true skill can show, SC2 has moved in the opposite direction, muddying the waters and increasingly adding unpredictable elements to the game.
The frustrations that come from units like the Widow Mine, and the slew of hard counters (like the Viper and Immortal) and poorly balanced units (like the Adept) really make the game a mess. If you read and study game design SC2 breaks so many rules, just like C&C did, and that should surprise no one since Browder was at the helm, and David Kim has no idea what he is doing.
A good place to start learning about game design, for those interested, is the design blogs from the Riot, such as this one: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417
Using some of the concepts illustrated there, you'll see that the Widow Mine and many of the recent SC2 changes in general creates a strong feeling of anti-fun and are unreliable, which has resulted in a big net loss of players (including me) while LoL has done the opposite. And the number of false choices in SC2 is laughable. The game is a mess.
It is actually quite a ridiculous game now, where Blizzard has replaced early game pushes from armies with early game harassment. They are similar in that they can both end the game. They differ in the fact that the former is actually battle between two armies, while the other is a ridiculous micro scenario that doesn't resemble a battle, but feels a lot like an Aiur Chef match.
And that is very sad, because I loved SC2 more than any other game.
|
On September 26 2015 07:09 MrInocence wrote:
1. Oracles obliterate your worker line unless you have an exact defense. This pisses off casuals and hardcores alike, and even GSL level players have a hard time. Solution: Oracles lose pulsar beam, and become an arbiter-like support utility unit.
2. Medivac boost can straight up kill you, or neuter your economy. Solution: Heavily nerf or remove medivac boost.
3. Widow mines murder workers. They are also cloaked when burrowed. Solution: Widow mines copy spider mines. They no longer target workers.
4. Speed mutalisks are so strong that they prompted the design team to create the Tempest and the Liberator and the spore crawler +bio buff to combat them. Practical Solution: Remove the speed from mutalisks.
Ideal Solution: Also rework larva mechanics so mutalisk production is streamlined rather than a burst of 30 mutalisks at once.
5. Reapers are a stupid earlygame only unit that can snowball out of control. They are terrifying in lower leagues. Solution: Remove their attack. Do what you will with their grenade, it doesn't matter.
6. Banshees are an invisible worker murdering air-to-ground nightmare that has plagued the TvT matchup since 2010. They are stronger in LotV. They are terrifying in lower leagues. Solution: Banshees can no longer cloak.
7. Hellions and hellbats have hard countered light units and workers since 2010. Practical solution: Ideal solution: Make them single target, or less overbearing, like the vulture.
8. The cannon rush. Solution: I don't have a solution, sorry.
9. Dark templar that can be warped in anywhere, in any number. Solution: I don't have a solution, sorry.
10. Protoss coinflips. Solution: This will be solved if the above are implemented.
11. Zerg tech switching into units that require different, specific counters. Ultralisks v. Broodlords v. Mutalisks for example. Solution: Larva must be linear. Hatcheries should not be able to bank massive amounts of larva.
12. Terran ultra harassment. Solution: This will be solved if the above are implemented.
These are the main issues. There are many more that I have not included. As you can see, some problematic recurring themes are such: - invisibility - untouchable air units that shoot down - requires specific counters too early in the game ----------- How to make the game more fun I am running out of time, so I'll make this brief. In order of importance.
1. Make Zerg the swarm again.
2. Air units should be relegated to a supporting role. Definitely not a strong air-to-ground role.
3. Terrain should matter again. Fighting over terrain, over paths of terrain, etc. Like in BW. This is partially achieved with weaker air units.
4. Armor should not be a weakness. Anti armored units should be toned down. Marauder/Immortal/Roach trifecta since WoL beta.
5. Units should be more core. Less moba style abilities. This way terrain and fighting will be more traditional. Adept shade is the definition of gimmicky. Make its model bigger, and make it function similar to a dragoon.
etc. All I have time for right now. Discuss.
You will allways have this kind of problems in an rts. It is grounded in the game itself. Ive never encountered a single rts where this wasnt a problem. The list you make isnt close to the truth. Anything in an rts can end games. In bw it was even more visible than in sc2. In bw we could kill an opponent with just one worker.
Many of your points have simple answers. The answer to oracle/dts for example is just a turret or a spore (in your games it doesnt matter if you waste resource on 3 turrets). It is simple as that. But in an rts there are so many possibilities it takes a long time for a new player to learn all this stuff and this can be a frustrating experience.
Some of your solutions make the game worse. Mutas are an harassment tool (zerg hasnt many) and you want to make them slower? For what are they good after that? Imagine a world without wm. We would have no answers to mass chargelots and mass banelings and to some extent to mass mutas, to oracles etc. Hell we wont have mmm vs muta bane ling which is the most fun strategy. Wms are very versatile. Imagine we have no oracle protoss could not open up with stargate (back to only robo builds). You see many of your points have added more fun to the game than frustration.
When i ve played bw the first time i was extremly frustrated but the drive to win games stopped me from giving up. The hardcore 1x1 experience will allways be for people who have the drive to compete, to improve and to win.
EDIT: Also some of your points are wrong. You just allways look at a single part of the game but name it a as a complete such as in bw were air units weak. They werent! Air units get strong from stacking. Its like having 20 units at one single point. Every unit fires at the same time at the same unit. That is the strength of air. Voidrays are strong because of that. Mutas too. In bw you could even stack the health of mutas. Thats not possible anymore. Sorry but i cant believe you that you are a master. You dont talk like that.
|
On September 27 2015 14:11 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 07:09 MrInocence wrote: ... There are increasing amounts of frustrations added in WoL, HotS, and LotV.
You should have stopped here, because you hit the nail on the head and your suggestions afterwards just distract from it. HOTS and LOTV are very poor games when it comes to game design. The Widow is a terribly thought out unit that has a psychological impact on the other player that forces a style of safe play that is bad for an action game ("there may be Widow Mines and they do so much damage that I cannot advance until I can see them"). The number of units they hit do is also unpredictable. The result is players win or lose games based on interactions that cannot be reliably repeated.And that is awful. As other games have moved to clarify interactions and remove unpredictability so true skill can show, SC2 has moved in the opposite direction, muddying the waters and increasingly adding unpredictable elements to the game.The frustrations that come from units like the Widow Mine, and the slew of hard counters (like the Viper and Immortal) and poorly balanced units (like the Adept) really make the game a mess. If you read and study game design SC2 breaks so many rules, just like C&C did, and that should surprise no one since Browder was at the helm, and David Kim has no idea what he is doing. A good place to start learning about game design, for those interested, is the design blogs from the Riot, such as this one: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417Using some of the concepts illustrated there, you'll see that the Widow Mine and many of the recent SC2 changes in general creates a strong feeling of anti-fun and are unreliable, which has resulted in a big net loss of players (including me) while LoL has done the opposite. And the number of false choices in SC2 is laughable. The game is a mess. It is actually quite a ridiculous game now, where Blizzard has replaced early game pushes from armies with early game harassment. They are similar in that they can both end the game. They differ in the fact that the former is actually battle between two armies, while the other is a ridiculous micro scenario that doesn't resemble a battle, but feels a lot like an Aiur Chef match. And that is very sad, because I loved SC2 more than any other game.
I think this is more a difference in design style, rather than simply poor design choices.
Riot builds their game around design choices similar to say, a slot machine. They focus on big, perceptive aspects, rather than subtle balance aspects. They would much rather have a player FEEL rewarded for something simple, than actually reward the player in the end. The result is a shallow, but addicting game.
SC2, and the team behind it, focus more on the end result of game. They focus on punishing small misplays. They never GIVE the player a reward, but rather allow the player to set their own goals and rewards. The result is a much more complex game, with much larger achievements for the actual player- but one that requires much more commitment.
|
If you will all bear with me for a few moments, I'd like to give an example of my own experience in trying to enjoy SC2. I've played SC2 since the beginning, playing zerg for most of WOL and HOTS.
Back in the day, I used to grind for hours on the ladder, trying to improve my game, figure out what to do vs terran hellion harrass and protoss colosus deathballs. I would watch pro games, youtube videos, you name it, absorbing information and clawing my way up the ladder WOL. All that time, whenever all my drones were roasted because I wasn't paying attention for one second as hellions drove by my army, or when my 12 minute roach max couldn't contend with the colosus sentry stalker deathball, I would tell myself, if only I played better, I would have won that game. If I had just hit that one extra inject, or maybe engaged that army at another angle, make the correct units at the right time, that game would have been mine.
When I finally reached masters league after countless hours of play, I realized that what I had been trying to do was not play a game of strategy, but play a game of rock, paper, scissors. Every action I took was a reaction to an opponent's play where the consequence of a non-perfect response cost me the game. SC2 became not a game of strategy where I could use my creativity and playstyle to defeat an opponent, but a game where I just responded right or wrong and I won or lost my game accordingly. There was so little room for deviation that I could no longer express myself in my play. I think this lack of self expression was what cost me the fun in the end, and this all relates back to the game-ending (disproportionate consequence of action-reaction) nature of the unit designs in the game.
On a related note, as a person who likes to think of himself as being methodical and precise, I tried playing the game a different way in an attempt to find the fun again. I had just starting playing again after a few months absence, and I picked up playing terran, but with a twist --> I relearned all my hotkeys using the core to optimize my macro in the hopes of overwhelming my opponents with more units, and thereby (in my mind) completely bypassing the strategic aspect of the game (or lack thereof, see above).
I did this for a few months, with what I would consider to be great success since I had never really played terran except in the campaigns before this. I made so much more stuff than my opponents that I managed to reach high diamond/ low masters in HOTS in less than 6 months, starting in bronze league! In the end though, my enjoyment faded just like before when I realized that making more stuff and crashing it into my opponent still wasn't fun for me (can't say I didn't try though!). There was little to no decision making on my part, just pressing buttons with more precision and focus than the other guy.
tldr: Played zerg in wol and hots, couldn't find strategic self expression because of rock, paper, scissors unit design and quit. Came back as terran, played with a completely different mindset by primarily relying on optimized macro to win, still could not express self in game. Fail.
|
On September 27 2015 16:05 Nimrod.519 wrote: If you will all bear with me for a few moments, I'd like to give an example of my own experience in trying to enjoy SC2. I've played SC2 since the beginning, playing zerg for most of WOL and HOTS.
Back in the day, I used to grind for hours on the ladder, trying to improve my game, figure out what to do vs terran hellion harrass and protoss colosus deathballs. I would watch pro games, youtube videos, you name it, absorbing information and clawing my way up the ladder WOL. All that time, whenever all my drones were roasted because I wasn't paying attention for one second as hellions drove by my army, or when my 12 minute roach max couldn't contend with the colosus sentry stalker deathball, I would tell myself, if only I played better, I would have won that game. If I had just hit that one extra inject, or maybe engaged that army at another angle, make the correct units at the right time, that game would have been mine.
When I finally reached masters league after countless hours of play, I realized that what I had been trying to do was not play a game of strategy, but play a game of rock, paper, scissors. Every action I took was a reaction to an opponent's play where the consequence of a non-perfect response cost me the game. SC2 became not a game of strategy where I could use my creativity and playstyle to defeat an opponent, but a game where I just responded right or wrong and I won or lost my game accordingly. There was so little room for deviation that I could no longer express myself in my play. I think this lack of self expression was what cost me the fun in the end, and this all relates back to the game-ending (disproportionate consequence of action-reaction) nature of the unit designs in the game.
On a related note, as a person who likes to think of himself as being methodical and precise, I tried playing the game a different way in an attempt to find the fun again. I had just starting playing again after a few months absence, and I picked up playing terran, but with a twist --> I relearned all my hotkeys using the core to optimize my macro in the hopes of overwhelming my opponents with more units, and thereby (in my mind) completely bypassing the strategic aspect of the game (or lack thereof, see above).
I did this for a few months, with what I would consider to be great success since I had never really played terran except in the campaigns before this. I made so much more stuff than my opponents that I managed to reach high diamond/ low masters in HOTS in less than 6 months, starting in bronze league! In the end though, my enjoyment faded just like before when I realized that making more stuff and crashing it into my opponent still wasn't fun for me (can't say I didn't try though!). There was little to no decision making on my part, just pressing buttons with more precision and focus than the other guy.
tldr: Played zerg in wol and hots, couldn't find strategic self expression because of rock, paper, scissors unit design and quit. Came back as terran, played with a completely different mindset by primarily relying on optimized macro to win, still could not express self in game. Fail. This is the kind of attitude that I don't understand and probably never will. I think it comes from watching too much professional play and assuming that you need to play the same, and then basing your decisions off those of pros.
Starcraft is what you make of it. If you want to play a style where you need to memorize a bunch of specific responses and then execute them, then you can do that. If you don't want to play like that, then don't play like that. Consider that there are only a few optimal responses, but there are many, many viable and decent ways to play the game, which emphasize different aspects of your play. It sounds like you were trying to play reactive zerg, and didnt' like it. Then you tried to play macro terran, and didn't like it. There are many perfectly reasonable things you can do that are not those 2. Sure, they may not be best for improving, but if you play the game for fun, why do you really care?
This game is not inherently rock-paper-scissors, in any way. There are few builds and plays (DT, oracle, and that's about it) that are actually fundamentally binary. Everything else relies mostly on mechanics and decision making. Lower-leaguers (which you aren't) often watch pro-level starcraft and assume that the game works in terms of counters and responses and counters to the counters, but they are really just deluding themselves, because that's not how the game works. Starcraft is fundamentally a strategy game and if you lack strategy in your games it's because you aren't recognizing it or are ignoring it.
|
Ummm, you write as if TL community as this unified mob of people, everyone heartily agreeing with each other, while you are the single rebel able to see the light. I feel that you are asking for hostility, which will confirm your view of TL. TL, while heavily biased towards higher skill level compared to the average sc2-owner, is very heterogeneous and there are a bunch of people that regularly push of thinking of the lower level players, and like you complains that people don't take the lower leagues into account enough. Indeed, you notice that many posters (presumably part of the "TL community") agree with what you are saying. You wouldn't know of course, as you don't hang around here much. But feel free to make up assumptions about what everyone TL thinks anyway. And yes, whether you want it or not, you are very much part of the TL community. Even more so now with this post, and you are contributing with your part of the heterogeneity.
Anyway, just saying that the hostility you get is mainly due to your own tone in how you enter this discussion. You could have said the same thing perfectly well without bashing this "TL community" that isn't really represented by any single person, but is the sum of all the different types of posters. Which probably would have given you
That said, I agree with your general direction, that it is incredibly important that the game is fun to play for the newbs. (I've argued similar points in other threads in fact.) It is important that there is a good top-level game-play as well for the e-sports, which will help bring in new players. But it should be possible to get both.
I don't really agree with your approach of removing frustrating things. Or well, I'm not convinced it'll work. What is frustrating on the receiving end is often great fun for the other. Performing oracle harass is great fun, as is mass reapers at lower levels, as is medivac drops, etc. If we remove everything that can feel frustrating to defend, I fear we risk removing a lot of the things that are fun too.
|
Brood war was, and still is frustrating to me on ICCUP because I've played the games a ton and I still suck at it. Doesn't mean I don't like the game anymore. Forget fun, remember *working* mechanics.
|
On September 27 2015 16:42 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 16:05 Nimrod.519 wrote: If you will all bear with me for a few moments, I'd like to give an example of my own experience in trying to enjoy SC2. I've played SC2 since the beginning, playing zerg for most of WOL and HOTS.
Back in the day, I used to grind for hours on the ladder, trying to improve my game, figure out what to do vs terran hellion harrass and protoss colosus deathballs. I would watch pro games, youtube videos, you name it, absorbing information and clawing my way up the ladder WOL. All that time, whenever all my drones were roasted because I wasn't paying attention for one second as hellions drove by my army, or when my 12 minute roach max couldn't contend with the colosus sentry stalker deathball, I would tell myself, if only I played better, I would have won that game. If I had just hit that one extra inject, or maybe engaged that army at another angle, make the correct units at the right time, that game would have been mine.
When I finally reached masters league after countless hours of play, I realized that what I had been trying to do was not play a game of strategy, but play a game of rock, paper, scissors. Every action I took was a reaction to an opponent's play where the consequence of a non-perfect response cost me the game. SC2 became not a game of strategy where I could use my creativity and playstyle to defeat an opponent, but a game where I just responded right or wrong and I won or lost my game accordingly. There was so little room for deviation that I could no longer express myself in my play. I think this lack of self expression was what cost me the fun in the end, and this all relates back to the game-ending (disproportionate consequence of action-reaction) nature of the unit designs in the game.
On a related note, as a person who likes to think of himself as being methodical and precise, I tried playing the game a different way in an attempt to find the fun again. I had just starting playing again after a few months absence, and I picked up playing terran, but with a twist --> I relearned all my hotkeys using the core to optimize my macro in the hopes of overwhelming my opponents with more units, and thereby (in my mind) completely bypassing the strategic aspect of the game (or lack thereof, see above).
I did this for a few months, with what I would consider to be great success since I had never really played terran except in the campaigns before this. I made so much more stuff than my opponents that I managed to reach high diamond/ low masters in HOTS in less than 6 months, starting in bronze league! In the end though, my enjoyment faded just like before when I realized that making more stuff and crashing it into my opponent still wasn't fun for me (can't say I didn't try though!). There was little to no decision making on my part, just pressing buttons with more precision and focus than the other guy.
tldr: Played zerg in wol and hots, couldn't find strategic self expression because of rock, paper, scissors unit design and quit. Came back as terran, played with a completely different mindset by primarily relying on optimized macro to win, still could not express self in game. Fail. This is the kind of attitude that I don't understand and probably never will. I think it comes from watching too much professional play and assuming that you need to play the same, and then basing your decisions off those of pros. Starcraft is what you make of it. If you want to play a style where you need to memorize a bunch of specific responses and then execute them, then you can do that. If you don't want to play like that, then don't play like that. Consider that there are only a few optimal responses, but there are many, many viable and decent ways to play the game, which emphasize different aspects of your play. It sounds like you were trying to play reactive zerg, and didnt' like it. Then you tried to play macro terran, and didn't like it. There are many perfectly reasonable things you can do that are not those 2. Sure, they may not be best for improving, but if you play the game for fun, why do you really care? This game is not inherently rock-paper-scissors, in any way. There are few builds and plays (DT, oracle, and that's about it) that are actually fundamentally binary. Everything else relies mostly on mechanics and decision making. Lower-leaguers (which you aren't) often watch pro-level starcraft and assume that the game works in terms of counters and responses and counters to the counters, but they are really just deluding themselves, because that's not how the game works. Starcraft is fundamentally a strategy game and if you lack strategy in your games it's because you aren't recognizing it or are ignoring it.
I can see why you might think that I wasn't having fun by forcing myself to play a certain way because of the way I wrote that post, but the fact was that I also tried to play own style for a while (which I didn't include for the sake of brevity @_@). I guess it was mostly implied above, that when I played in my own way that it was an even less rewarding experience, since I could practically never win a game. Now you might say, hey, it's not always about winning. True. But isn't it at least sometimes about winning? When you do your own thing and lose waaaayyy more than when you play "optimally", would you not feel that you weren't being rewarded for your play?
I don't believe I am erroneously attributing this to the way units were designed in SC2 (there are countless threads about this aspect of the game on TL, not just this one).
|
On September 27 2015 15:34 Draddition wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 14:11 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 26 2015 07:09 MrInocence wrote: ... There are increasing amounts of frustrations added in WoL, HotS, and LotV.
You should have stopped here, because you hit the nail on the head and your suggestions afterwards just distract from it. HOTS and LOTV are very poor games when it comes to game design. The Widow is a terribly thought out unit that has a psychological impact on the other player that forces a style of safe play that is bad for an action game ("there may be Widow Mines and they do so much damage that I cannot advance until I can see them"). The number of units they hit do is also unpredictable. The result is players win or lose games based on interactions that cannot be reliably repeated.And that is awful. As other games have moved to clarify interactions and remove unpredictability so true skill can show, SC2 has moved in the opposite direction, muddying the waters and increasingly adding unpredictable elements to the game.The frustrations that come from units like the Widow Mine, and the slew of hard counters (like the Viper and Immortal) and poorly balanced units (like the Adept) really make the game a mess. If you read and study game design SC2 breaks so many rules, just like C&C did, and that should surprise no one since Browder was at the helm, and David Kim has no idea what he is doing. A good place to start learning about game design, for those interested, is the design blogs from the Riot, such as this one: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417Using some of the concepts illustrated there, you'll see that the Widow Mine and many of the recent SC2 changes in general creates a strong feeling of anti-fun and are unreliable, which has resulted in a big net loss of players (including me) while LoL has done the opposite. And the number of false choices in SC2 is laughable. The game is a mess. It is actually quite a ridiculous game now, where Blizzard has replaced early game pushes from armies with early game harassment. They are similar in that they can both end the game. They differ in the fact that the former is actually battle between two armies, while the other is a ridiculous micro scenario that doesn't resemble a battle, but feels a lot like an Aiur Chef match. And that is very sad, because I loved SC2 more than any other game. I think this is more a difference in design style, rather than simply poor design choices. Riot builds their game around design choices similar to say, a slot machine. They focus on big, perceptive aspects, rather than subtle balance aspects. They would much rather have a player FEEL rewarded for something simple, than actually reward the player in the end. The result is a shallow, but addicting game. SC2, and the team behind it, focus more on the end result of game. They focus on punishing small misplays. They never GIVE the player a reward, but rather allow the player to set their own goals and rewards. The result is a much more complex game, with much larger achievements for the actual player- but one that requires much more commitment.
I don't think you understand what I said. My issues isn't the "design style" is the game design itself. It designed very poorly. Please take the time to read the game design article from Riot in the link I posted above and you'll understand what I mean. SC2 is filled with false choices. That isn't a design style, it is a design mistake. The fact that Mech wasn't viable in most matchups through most of the history of SC2 (I can't speak for LOTV today, I'm not following it) wasn't some kind of "style", it was because the game was terribly designed and presented a false choice.
SC2 has no discernible design style anyway, and is trending ever more into strange territory with MOBA like abilities. LoL is unapologetic in what it is. It hides nothing. I don't think that LoL/DOTA are addicting, I think they are fun. As was said, fun is normative, not subjective.
I do understand that deep achievement of doing something great in SC2, of making it to masters or Grandmasters, or winning tournaments for money, I competed hard in WOL. The thing is, you can have both. You can have a game that is actually well designed and have that deep sense of achievement and depth of skill.
It existed to a great extent back in 2011 with SC2, exists with BW, and can exist again with LOTV.
|
On September 27 2015 16:05 Nimrod.519 wrote: If you will all bear with me for a few moments, I'd like to give an example of my own experience in trying to enjoy SC2. I've played SC2 since the beginning, playing zerg for most of WOL and HOTS.
Back in the day, I used to grind for hours on the ladder, trying to improve my game, figure out what to do vs terran hellion harrass and protoss colosus deathballs. I would watch pro games, youtube videos, you name it, absorbing information and clawing my way up the ladder WOL. All that time, whenever all my drones were roasted because I wasn't paying attention for one second as hellions drove by my army, or when my 12 minute roach max couldn't contend with the colosus sentry stalker deathball, I would tell myself, if only I played better, I would have won that game. If I had just hit that one extra inject, or maybe engaged that army at another angle, make the correct units at the right time, that game would have been mine.
When I finally reached masters league after countless hours of play, I realized that what I had been trying to do was not play a game of strategy, but play a game of rock, paper, scissors. Every action I took was a reaction to an opponent's play where the consequence of a non-perfect response cost me the game. SC2 became not a game of strategy where I could use my creativity and playstyle to defeat an opponent, but a game where I just responded right or wrong and I won or lost my game accordingly. There was so little room for deviation that I could no longer express myself in my play. I think this lack of self expression was what cost me the fun in the end, and this all relates back to the game-ending (disproportionate consequence of action-reaction) nature of the unit designs in the game.
On a related note, as a person who likes to think of himself as being methodical and precise, I tried playing the game a different way in an attempt to find the fun again. I had just starting playing again after a few months absence, and I picked up playing terran, but with a twist --> I relearned all my hotkeys using the core to optimize my macro in the hopes of overwhelming my opponents with more units, and thereby (in my mind) completely bypassing the strategic aspect of the game (or lack thereof, see above).
I did this for a few months, with what I would consider to be great success since I had never really played terran except in the campaigns before this. I made so much more stuff than my opponents that I managed to reach high diamond/ low masters in HOTS in less than 6 months, starting in bronze league! In the end though, my enjoyment faded just like before when I realized that making more stuff and crashing it into my opponent still wasn't fun for me (can't say I didn't try though!). There was little to no decision making on my part, just pressing buttons with more precision and focus than the other guy.
tldr: Played zerg in wol and hots, couldn't find strategic self expression because of rock, paper, scissors unit design and quit. Came back as terran, played with a completely different mindset by primarily relying on optimized macro to win, still could not express self in game. Fail. Could you please elaborate on what "strategy" and "strategic self expression" means? I can't understand what you are looking for in a game and just feel like we haven't played the same game called SC2.
|
Great writeup. Love all your ideas.
|
Isn't fun and frustration goes hand in hand (to a certain degree).
I don't think so. I think that a well-designed game will make interactions that are fun no matter the outcome. Sure you still prefer winning, but if you had a back-and-fourth engagement with lots of counterplay opportunites + ways to demonstrate skill --> I think you can find it fun without it being a frustrating experience.
It's important to remember that the whole multiplayer-focussed gaming industry is not that old yet, and I believe that in 15-20 years people are going to look back at some of the designs of current multiplayer games with despair. Because alot of gamedesigners currently don't know what they are doing and I see so much potential for the multiplayer games to be a lot more fun when gaming companies start to hire more competent personel or when the current employeed gets more experience.
|
I feel like most of the things OP mentions are valid fun 'ruiners'. But Blizzard insists on keeping them in game because they think it adds some spectating value to SC2.
|
To be honest I used to play Terran. I love Mech with Tanks and would mech in every match up. In LOTV the changes really did not favor what I wanted out of Terran. While I wanted to build tanks and smash nerds in the face, Terran became the mobile pew pew race with crap tons of micro race.
SO I SWITCHED RACES
Now I play Zerg in LOTV and I love it. With Lurkers and Ravegers and the faster economy.
My 2 cents, try the other races. If you still don't like the game, then you can quit
|
On September 28 2015 01:12 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 16:05 Nimrod.519 wrote: If you will all bear with me for a few moments, I'd like to give an example of my own experience in trying to enjoy SC2. I've played SC2 since the beginning, playing zerg for most of WOL and HOTS.
Back in the day, I used to grind for hours on the ladder, trying to improve my game, figure out what to do vs terran hellion harrass and protoss colosus deathballs. I would watch pro games, youtube videos, you name it, absorbing information and clawing my way up the ladder WOL. All that time, whenever all my drones were roasted because I wasn't paying attention for one second as hellions drove by my army, or when my 12 minute roach max couldn't contend with the colosus sentry stalker deathball, I would tell myself, if only I played better, I would have won that game. If I had just hit that one extra inject, or maybe engaged that army at another angle, make the correct units at the right time, that game would have been mine.
When I finally reached masters league after countless hours of play, I realized that what I had been trying to do was not play a game of strategy, but play a game of rock, paper, scissors. Every action I took was a reaction to an opponent's play where the consequence of a non-perfect response cost me the game. SC2 became not a game of strategy where I could use my creativity and playstyle to defeat an opponent, but a game where I just responded right or wrong and I won or lost my game accordingly. There was so little room for deviation that I could no longer express myself in my play. I think this lack of self expression was what cost me the fun in the end, and this all relates back to the game-ending (disproportionate consequence of action-reaction) nature of the unit designs in the game.
On a related note, as a person who likes to think of himself as being methodical and precise, I tried playing the game a different way in an attempt to find the fun again. I had just starting playing again after a few months absence, and I picked up playing terran, but with a twist --> I relearned all my hotkeys using the core to optimize my macro in the hopes of overwhelming my opponents with more units, and thereby (in my mind) completely bypassing the strategic aspect of the game (or lack thereof, see above).
I did this for a few months, with what I would consider to be great success since I had never really played terran except in the campaigns before this. I made so much more stuff than my opponents that I managed to reach high diamond/ low masters in HOTS in less than 6 months, starting in bronze league! In the end though, my enjoyment faded just like before when I realized that making more stuff and crashing it into my opponent still wasn't fun for me (can't say I didn't try though!). There was little to no decision making on my part, just pressing buttons with more precision and focus than the other guy.
tldr: Played zerg in wol and hots, couldn't find strategic self expression because of rock, paper, scissors unit design and quit. Came back as terran, played with a completely different mindset by primarily relying on optimized macro to win, still could not express self in game. Fail. Could you please elaborate on what "strategy" and "strategic self expression" means? I can't understand what you are looking for in a game and just feel like we haven't played the same game called SC2.
To me, strategy is devising a solution to solve a problem, as a means of defeating your opponent. Self expression in this context is to be able to devise your own solution. In the case of SC2, at higher levels of play, if you do not follow a certain pattern of play, you have a much lower chance of winning a game. This pattern restricts what I am or am not able to do. What I am looking for is to be able to use different ways that I feel are best in solving a problem (this is the self-expression part), but I cannot do that if I want to win. Does this better explain what I mean for strategy and strategic self expression?
|
On September 27 2015 17:35 Cascade wrote:Ummm, you write as if TL community as this unified mob of people, everyone heartily agreeing with each other, while you are the single rebel able to see the light. I feel that you are asking for hostility, which will confirm your view of TL. TL, while heavily biased towards higher skill level compared to the average sc2-owner, is very heterogeneous and there are a bunch of people that regularly push of thinking of the lower level players, and like you complains that people don't take the lower leagues into account enough. Indeed, you notice that many posters (presumably part of the "TL community") agree with what you are saying. You wouldn't know of course, as you don't hang around here much. But feel free to make up assumptions about what everyone TL thinks anyway. And yes, whether you want it or not, you are very much part of the TL community. Even more so now with this post, and you are contributing with your part of the heterogeneity. Anyway, just saying that the hostility you get is mainly due to your own tone in how you enter this discussion. You could have said the same thing perfectly well without bashing this "TL community" that isn't really represented by any single person, but is the sum of all the different types of posters. Which probably would have given you That said, I agree with your general direction, that it is incredibly important that the game is fun to play for the newbs. (I've argued similar points in other threads in fact.) It is important that there is a good top-level game-play as well for the e-sports, which will help bring in new players. But it should be possible to get both. I don't really agree with your approach of removing frustrating things. Or well, I'm not convinced it'll work. What is frustrating on the receiving end is often great fun for the other. Performing oracle harass is great fun, as is mass reapers at lower levels, as is medivac drops, etc. If we remove everything that can feel frustrating to defend, I fear we risk removing a lot of the things that are fun too. On the last point about removing frustrating things also removes fun,
This is my argument. Basically the gist is by toning down flying harass and other super strong harass, terrain and army movement and engagement becomes more important.
You cannot stop an oracle by controlling ground. You cannot stop a medivac drop by controlling ground. They just fly by and don't care about your terrain control.
However, you can stop a ling runby by controlling ground. You can stop a few siege tanks from rolling up and sieging your 3rd base by controlling that area. So your opponent will fight with you over terrain. That, I think, is much cooler than just dropship swatting all game. Current harass defense is like trying to kill a mosquito, even if you kill it it's just an annoyance gone, not anything rewarding.
tl;dr if you remove michael bay style harass, ok some fun is gone but more fun is added because terrain matters again, army movement matters again, paths of attack matter again. I think thats way more cool than michael bay harass or just a generic dropship/prism/muta trying to avoid the antiair and sneaking into a base.
|
|
|
|