Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

I finally threw in the towel on Starcraft this week. As a single player game, it’s amazing. Game of the year as far as I’m concerned.  It’s multiplayer design is phenomenal as well. It’s the single best game purchase I made in 2010.

And yet, playing online, against humans, has demonstrated why I just cannot stand multiplayer games in general.  At various times during the beta I was ranked between "bronze” and “diamond” leagues.  In my experience, the difference between silver and gold is pretty small in terms of player quality.  Above that, you are starting to deal with a much higher quality of player.

The problem is, at silver and gold levels of Starcraft, the players you’re up against are overwhelmingly “all in” starting strategists. That is, they expect to win or lose the game in the first 5 minutes, which, to me, as a father of 3 nearing 40 years of age, is an anathema. I want to play the damn game.

The key to Starcraft is “scouting”. You scout to try to figure out what strategy they’re going to employ.  This works in theory  -- if you’re willing to devote inordinate amounts of time to the meta game that is Starcraft multiplayer. The meta game consists of scouting YouTube and various other sites to see what the latest fad opening cheese tactic is.

Playing against Zerg? Check to see if they’re doing a Baneling rush. Mutablob? Or are they going to do the extra roach cheese rush? Or something entirely different.

Playing against Protos? Photon canon rush? remote base? Probe hiding in your base?

Playing against Terran? Mass marine + peon rush? Mass Reapers? Rush for cloaked banshees? Or any of the myriad of other all-in strategies.

Scout. Scout. Scout.  That’s the alleged answer but it misses the point.  If you want to play the game, counter or no counter you still lose.  If you fail to counter, game is over in 5 minutes.  If you successfully counter, they quit and game is over in 5 minutes.

I don’t even know what Blizzard could do about this because we are playing two different games. I am playing a game of Starcraft, they are playing the Meta game of Battle.net rankings. 

I get more pissed off when I counter all-in strategy than when I fail because I don’t even get the satisfaction of taking the fight back to them. They quit immediately when their all-in attempt has failed and move on to the next game.

But that frustration is rivaled by the feeling that if I don’t want to be victim to the latest all-in strategy I have to keep up with it.  The extra Roach trick, for instance, is really hard to spot from “scouting” and very hard to counter (and if you’re wrong about which strategy they’re going to employ – something the “scout” people ignore, you end up crippling yourself).

Probably the only realistic thing that Blizzard could do is have those at Bronze, Silver and Gold Leagues have a somewhat randomize set of start-up conditions so that players can’t literally play out a recipe strategy they read on the net.  But I don’t see that happening.

I love Starcraft. I love it so much that I get frustrated that I can’t just get to play the actual game. I’ll have to stick with LAN parties for now I guess.


Comments (Page 6)
9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Dec 01, 2010

Zavrtak

Having a games outcome be determined on very few desicions makes a simple game

This isn’t necessarily true. What it allows for is players that must be constantly aware of what their opponent is doing. In SC2 for instance, there are several timings in a game where either player might quickly dominate the other, and it has the exact opposite impact that you allege. It requires constant awareness and the ability to evolve your strategy depending on the stage of the game, as well as the ability to think on your feet (we can't forget the RT in RTS). There’s less margin for error (at least at the start) which makes the game anything but simple. SC2 is not a simple game. Fool’s mate is avoided if you see it coming- that’s the same in SC2 (assuming adequate balance).

on Dec 02, 2010

I think this points out a huge problem with gaming akin to when AOL got onto the Usenet.

The problem, without going into "What is usenet?" is that when you present pearls before swine, you have a well dressed pig.

The mentality of Generation Y (born before after 1982 or so) is to just go for rankings, not to enjoy the game.  I have not played multiplayer starcraft because of this.  I tried World of Warcraft, saw the "level me prease" mentality and quit.  I played Eve and saw the same problem.  I played CHESS on yahoo and well - guess what?  Same problem.  Players who want to win in under 5 minutes and who have somehow honed their chess skills to the point where they can play blitz and finish a game in under 3 minutes of clock time.

I asked a player on Eve if they felt that buying a character who was already "god like" was cheating. My mouth hit the floor when he defended the idea that it is not cheating at all.

Something happened between those of us who spent some time in childhood when only 1 kid on the block had an Atari 2600 and when everyone grew up with $5000 computer game systems.  I got my $5k system when I got out of college.  And promptly switched back down when i got married + had 4 kids.

What happened?

I don't know.  Something about not wanting to listen to anything more than 140 characters in length.  Maybe Rittalin was a VERY bad thing to give to 1/2 the population of high energy 8 year olds.  Maybe sending litte Timmy to the contemplation corner instead of smacking his backside wasn't a good idea.  The vast majority of online gamers today are power munchkins who level at all cost, see nothing wrong with buying their high level character, and well... generally they just aren't any fun to play with. 

If these narcissists end up running the country in 20 years we are doomed.

What will fix it?

Carding people to get in to play?

Anyway, sorry to hear that online play has ruined things, but get used to it.  Its exactly why I hate most online gaming, including simple games like chess or spades or bridge.  The munchkins are horrible.

 

on Dec 02, 2010

I don't play much RTS, but this, in a nutshell, is precisely why I don't play chess online. The exact same "recipe win" strategy is employed and players bail when the strategy is properly countered.

on Dec 02, 2010
on Nov 29, 2010
"If you didn't enjoy playing Tetris, torturing yourself for countless hours on end simply to achieve a high score no one will ever care about, you are one poor bastard.  Thinking like this makes those morons that do stupid shit to get into Guinness look really smart.  At least they get their name in a book, immortalized in history as the rejects they were. 

If you just want to challenge yourself, hold your breath."

 

You are my hero.  I would like to buy you a beer.  OMG did you hit the nail on the head. 

Good example of games where losing can be fun:

Dragonrealms (I was a thief, its a text only, pay to play MUD that is just too expensive to play at $40/month).  I got my behind handed to me regularly for stealing from people.  Best fun in the world was a creative person hunting me down 2-3 days after the fact solely to put an arrow intentionally through my throat and watch me bleed to death.

Dwarf Fortress.  Their game motto is, "Losing in fun".  In their forms, some actions (such as unplugging a well) are said that they may "lead to fun".  Which means well... death, burning, destruction (of you, not anyone else).  You can't even save a game to try different things without end tasking the application.  This is by design and those who do it are frowned upon.

Starcraft -- yea, had fun losing there.

Galactic Civilizations - yes, many hours (months?) of fun losing games here.  I would say I lose ~80% of the games I play in this series.  BUt thats b/c I play on a hard setting and because I want a challenge.  WHen i do win, its glorious.

Chess.  Yeap.  Fun to lose sometimes when you see brilliance.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Aside from the idiocy with pirates, lots of fun to lose.

etc.

 

on Dec 02, 2010

It is a sad synopsis of Online play today. Get in on the ground floor if playing MP and keep up or forget it. Become/ be considered Elite, get to always play on the winning side, or stay SP side.

Online MP Noob bashing is a Game and Sport, in and of itself today.

DoW1 was a blast, large masses and huge death battles. Just getting into one of those, win or lose, was FUN. Yes, it had its Cheese but the large scale BATTLES was the draw. Most seemed to be of the same mind.

DoW2. The new format never inspired me to go online after the Demo.

CoH was great. Balance ended the run on that on. Same MP play issues as noted above though. Get in on the ground floor if playing MP and keep up or forget it. I hadn't played in 8 months, fired it up the other night, went Auto 1v1. After 8 minutes I was getting cursed, called sour names and told how bad I sucked before they Quit. It was obvious they would not win. Things hadn't changed...

Now E:WoM. I foresee little MP play for me for the reason Frog mentions in the OP. Perhaps he can spearhead a new movement by making sure it does not happen under the E:WoM MP umbrella. I won't hold my breath though.

I have always seen it as much a Players problem as Games problem. Eliminating the possibility, will kill any game that attempts to provide MP based competition.

I am here, right now, because of the OP's complaint about current Online MP play stigma's. So hows about we help SD get E:WoMs SP portion up to snuff... pronto.... please....

on Dec 02, 2010

Ahhhhh, the whole puzzling and yet thrilling joy of MP competition.

It's just as if our intellect is being driven to the tectonic undergrounds of brain hell. Where we suddenly realize gameplay isn't a fact but a mean of boosting personal pride. While the crowdy crews hit the chat button only to skip it at the perfectly right moment in order to blow up the opponents' head.

Don't get me wrong, MP has its own market or feasible potential... but when it comes to pure fun, i'd rather wreck havoc within & with an AI (wisely compiled, btw) algorithmic struggles.

Your mileage may differ.

PS; When's real GC3 plans start?

on Dec 03, 2010

I've stopped trying to play anything online. There are too many players with vile attitudes and manners. Too many people hide behind their handles to be nasty in ways they wouldn't dare in the real world. Such behaviour sucks the fun out of online play for me before I even find out whether a particular game might be fun.

on Dec 03, 2010

PSourice

The mentality of Generation Y (born before after 1982 or so) is to just go for rankings, not to enjoy the game.

playing to win isn't necessarily related to caring about one's ranking. i will always play my hardest to win, and i only care about ranking in as much as i want to be ranked accurately to ensure tight, close games. i was born in 1978 too

i think too many people are creating artificial limits on themselves or others, as if "cheese" is bad or there's some un-spoken rule on when/how it is acceptable to play. the games where two equal combattants are trying their best to win, produce the best games (both to play and to watch).

 

on Dec 03, 2010

PSourice

 

"If these narcissists end up running the country in 20 years we are doomed."

 

People like them already do run the country and have been for a very long time. 

on Dec 04, 2010

scratchthepitch
PSourice

 

"If these narcissists end up running the country in 20 years we are doomed."

 

People like them already do run the country and have been for a very long time. 

What's funny and sad is this is such a tired tit for tat between generation now and generation coming up. It's not even original.

on Dec 04, 2010

i think too many people are creating artificial limits on themselves or others, as if "cheese" is bad or there's some un-spoken rule on when/how it is acceptable to play. the games where two equal combattants are trying their best to win, produce the best games (both to play and to watch).

 

If I didn't create artificial limits for myself, "fun" would never have existed for the Warlords:Battlecry series.  They're too poorly balanced, and have some bum mechanics that make fun quite impossible at the level of bullshit I could pull off back then.  These days arthritis would even the playing field since I'm out of practice, but when I was in top form I could be a real monster.  It's really simple, in a perfect game world I could be a total asshole and still have fun doing it, anything less and I'll hamstring the setting to some degree.  It's much like real life. 

 

If you got into a fight with me, you could probably kick my ass all over the place.  We could go at it for hours, take it back up another day, all kinds of crazy shit.  Unfortunately I have lots and lots of guns, so the real world outcome of you picking a fight with me would be you bleeding on the ground about the time you took a swing at me.  Guns make such a fight very, very boring.  You have to have gun fights, which entail fatalities, or you have to limit yourself to reasonable methods of combat for a sustainable venture.

 

What's funny and said is that this is such a tired tit for tat between generation now and generation coming up. It's not even original.

 

I'm an 82 myself.  Personally I think my generation is filled with a bunch of fucking morons.  No tit for tat needed here, just observation of the disconnect between brain and wallet.  We can't even handle basic math, or the world economy wouldn't be going down the shitter because no one can grasp the concept of not spending wealth that doesn't exist.

on Dec 04, 2010

I'm an 82 myself.  Personally I think my generation is filled with a bunch of fucking morons.  No tit for tat needed here, just observation of the disconnect between brain and wallet.  We can't even handle basic math, or the world economy wouldn't be going down the shitter because no one can grasp the concept of not spending wealth that doesn't exist.

Amen brother.

on Dec 04, 2010

 

I'm a '74. 

My observations with regard to strategy games are very much the same as yours Brad.  People have come to very quickly focus on the metagame (this is made even worse thanks to built-in ladders and ranking systems) and create optimal "build-orders" which are followed in order to yield a win.  Since wins/losses are what is being used to determine ladder rank etc. nothing else factors (least of all "fun") into gameplay anymore.

My observations with regard to first-person shooters are somewhat different in that a personal "win" for people playing FPS's is not so much winning the round or match but having above all a positive KDR (kill-death-ratio).  Personally I blame the tracking of a player's KDR for ruining teamplay in public online FPS (unless of course you're playing organized clan-wars on TWL or something like that).  Far Cry 2 did an interesting thing which was only showing KILLS at the end of a round and not deaths.  I do think that helped somewhat.  If a game wants to include game-modes other than team-deathmatch I believe KDR should NOT be shown or even tracked anywhere.  I know that would upset the whole stat-whore crowd out there, but by god I'd bet teamplay would increase ten-fold! 

the Monk

on Dec 04, 2010

the_Monk
 
My observations with regard to strategy games are very much the same as yours Brad.  People have come to very quickly focus on the metagame (this is made even worse thanks to built-in ladders and ranking systems) and create optimal "build-orders" which are followed in order to yield a win.  Since wins/losses are what is being used to determine ladder rank etc. nothing else factors (least of all "fun") into gameplay anymore.

My observations with regard to first-person shooters are somewhat different in that a personal "win" for people playing FPS's is not so much winning the round or match but having above all a positive KDR (kill-death-ratio).  Personally I blame the tracking of a player's KDR for ruining teamplay in public online FPS (unless of course you're playing organized clan-wars on TWL or something like that).  Far Cry 2 did an interesting thing which was only showing KILLS at the end of a round and not deaths.  I do think that helped somewhat.  If a game wants to include game-modes other than team-deathmatch I believe KDR should NOT be shown or even tracked anywhere.  I know that would upset the whole stat-whore crowd out there, but by god I'd bet teamplay would increase ten-fold! 

the Monk

Believe it or not a lot of people get enjoyment out of a game by becoming better at it. I would argue that this is a universal trait shared by every gamer. Ladders and K/D ratios are one of the ways of communicating to the player of how well they play the game. If you look at chess, it also has "build orders", ladders and rankings, and a very rich metagame. With this in mind, would you say that fun is not a factor in chess anymore? No, of course you wouldn't say that.

on Dec 04, 2010

marlowwe
Believe it or not a lot of people get enjoyment out of a game by becoming better at it. I would argue that this is a universal trait shared by every gamer. Ladders and K/D ratios are one of the ways of communicating to the player of how well they play the game. If you look at chess, it also has "build orders", ladders and rankings, and a very rich metagame. With this in mind, would you say that fun is not a factor in chess anymore? No, of course you wouldn't say that.

The vast majority of humanity does not enjoy playing chess.

having computer strategy games be reduced to chess is not necessarily a good thing.

9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last