Forum

good question. my previous post states that all competitive games focus around what the top players are doing. to use your own analogy; if the top players in starcraft2 had a different build of the game to the rest of the community. would that be sensible with the constantly changing scene? and the community one went by a different ruleset as well?

the pro’s are what keep starcraft at the top. they generally will work out the best strats and they are everyones motivation to get better and be competitive.

It is like premiership football being played as it is. and then all the leagues below it following the rules of 5 a side football. at least thats how i see it. and you will not suddenly make the premiership football players change all the rules and start playing 5 a side just because your village football team does. the rule change would have to come from the top. (not a perfect analogy but i think it gets the point across) :D

Adding in creativity is all well and good but genuine competitive gaming is characterised by being vanilla and staying vanilla. It can be boring I guess but it means that the team with the best strategy will more often than not win.

If you introduce a shit ton of unlocks, however, there are simply too many variables for a team to consider to develop quality strategies/counter-strategies and it just becomes chaotic. People own/get owned and have no idea why, and therefore can’t learn and continue to improve.

Imagine the i43 final with all unlocks- it would have been sheer hilarity with the tdh, natascha, fan and fuck knows what else thrown in there

49 replies already?
wow you guys are good rofl

Quoted from dougiie

please don’t compare football to this.

please.

it proved a point no?

anyway its not as if people like counterstrike any less because it never changes. fps games are a different animal to rts. they are reflex and aim based. when you add in elements that counteract those skills at a later date then it detracts from the pure competitive element of that game “type”

Quoted from bulletproofsmurf

Adding in creativity is all well and good but genuine competitive gaming is characterised by being vanilla and staying vanilla. It can be boring I guess but it means that the team with the best strategy will more often than not win.

If you introduce a shit ton of unlocks, however, there are simply too many variables for a team to consider to develop quality strategies/counter-strategies and it just becomes chaotic. People own/get owned and have no idea why, and therefore can’t learn and continue to improve.

Imagine the i43 final with all unlocks- it would have been sheer hilarity with the tdh, natascha, fan and fuck knows what else thrown in there

Complete utter fucking bullshit. It doesn’t add randomness, it just adds more factors to consider when building strategies. Therefore it requires more skill to come up with good strategies that are accustomed to the new variables that got introduced by the new unlocks.

Having less unlocks means that building your teams strategy requires less skill because there are simply less factors to consider.

So i now boldly state:
U motherfuckers whining for vanilla + medlocks are shit.
People that can win with more unlocks allowed are the real skilled people.

Quoted from Martn

[…]

Complete utter fucking bullshit. It doesn’t add randomness, it just adds more factors to consider when building strategies. Therefore it requires more skill to come up with good strategies that are accustomed to the new variables that got introduced by the new unlocks.

Having less unlocks means that building your teams strategy requires less skill because there are simply less factors to consider.

So i now boldly state:
U motherfuckers whining for vanilla + medlocks are shit.
People that can win with more unlocks allowed are the real skilled people.

Not sure if serious…..

Quoted from Martn

[…]

Complete utter fucking bullshit. It doesn’t add randomness, it just adds more factors to consider when building strategies. Therefore it requires more skill to come up with good strategies that are accustomed to the new variables that got introduced by the new unlocks.

Having less unlocks means that building your teams strategy requires less skill because there are simply less factors to consider.

So i now boldly state:
U motherfuckers whining for vanilla + medlocks are shit.
People that can win with more unlocks allowed are the real skilled people.

It will add randomness as long as you can’t scout what the opponent is using.

Adding variables past a certain does not make a game more skilled, but chaotic.

TF2 unlocks = “Eliminate all the worthless options because they confuse the player and add nothing”

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-2-viable-options.html

“Incomparable. Balance changing some of the unlocks to make them viable is fine, adding new ones which aren’t balanced competitively is not. TF2 unlocks are the equivalent of adding the Defiler to SC2 without testing because people “find it fun to use”.”

– Correct, but units are added to the game with a basic level of balance in place (maybe being theory, or some beta testing from the Blizzard developers). What then happens, is people use them, exploit the ones that are too strong, and a patch is delivered which rectifies the situation and keeps the game balanced. TF2 is no different, just rather than get to the point where people can exploit unlocks, they just want to ban them from the start losing all the potential before it has been explored. Weapons have been patched by valve allready. If the guns were actually used, and you saw a new metagame come into play, an email to Valve stating why a certain weapon needs some balance changes would have a lot more weight to it when it has had time to be exploited.

“Counter them through in-game strategy then, not through a particular item. The beauty of SC is that unit counters do not necessarily decide the game. High level players may not be able to take down a strong, immobile army head on, but they can exploit this immobility with fast units.”

– Again, correct. In TF2’s case, you don’t _need_ to counter a team using different unlocks, with a different set of unlocks yourself. You can still very much play a game without using a single unlock, against a team that is using any combination of unlocks. But like SC2, you might have a mech army, and you are forced to be fighting it with a bio army (you can’t swap or you would be behind and lose), so you use what you have to your advantage. That doesn’t mean that bio vs mech is as balanced as mech vs mech, but the game is still perfectly playable, as long as you don’t try to play the two matches the same. You might need to adapt your style in TF2 to play against a team using unlocks, just as you would need to adapt your style to play against a mech player when you’re bio. There’s not a problem with that.

“Your SC2 example can be prevented by diligent scouting, that isn’t possible in TF2.”

– Scouting can be denied in SC2, things can be hidden, but eventually, they will need to be exposed. In TF2, you can’t know what the enemy team is walking out of their respawn with, however, classes and attacking routes can be determined by the timings that players arrive in middle, as well as a few unlocks can be determined this way. Also in SC2, you often make a sacrifice to obtain that scouting information, whether it be sending a probe to scout, using a scan or building an expensive unit to get into the enemy base. You can obtain limited information in tf2 by sacrificing a player (or damage on a player), but you would need to judge if it is worth the sacrifice. I suspect most of the time, it is not, but if the game came down to accurate scouting, then maybe it might be.

“Micro-wise, yes. Macro-wise no. The brain of Boxer with the Macro of Flash is the perfect SC player. That’s on a pro-level of course. Amateur master play is defined as being able to execute a build with crisp timings, and scouting/adapting optimally to your opponents play.”

– If I was to compare SCs Micro and Macro in TF2, I would say your aim and positioning would be the micro skills, and your team’s tactics, understanding when to retreat, or push, controlling the flanks… that would all be considered macro. Teams still have those skills, but creativity can win SC2 players titles. It is an added skill that is often overlooked. Being able to successfully suprise your opponent is a skill. Being able to react successfully to a situation out of the ordinary is another skill.

Boxer was extremely famous in SC and BW. He was famous for being a solid player, but most people will remember him for his creativity, well executed rushes, using out of the ordinary tactics like, nukes, vulture jumps, command center interceptor crushes etc… From a spectator point of view, watching Flash is amazing. It is awesome to see someone truely perfecting the techniques of the game. From a spectator point of view, watching boxer is amazing. It is awesome to see some crazy ass strategies being pulled off that I would never have thought of. BOTH of these add spectator value to the game, BOTH of these make the games entertaining, but also fun to play. If SC was just watching which player macro’s and micro’s the best, over and over, it would get boring. It’s the creativity which keeps the game fresh for the spectators, and the players.