I disagree with LoL being "teamplay" orientated. Only the final phase of the game requires much team-work, before that it's either solo or duo, short of organised teams.
What it does, however, is lump you with 4 people you generally don't know and put you in a position where you rely on them to win. I don't think this needs much of an explanation when it comes to rage-induction.
It's "teamplay" orientated insofar as that no matter how good you are, you're probably not going to make up for 1-2 bad team-mates.
League of Legends, I think it has the highest money being given out for any esports, I would assume people would get damn competitive for something like that. I actually find sc2 more lax than LoL a lot. LoL you got teammates who yell at you because they want to win so badly on a non ranked game compared to sc2 where it's just you and you can do whatever. Hell, going to those custom games where you spectate are so much fun. It's basically social hour while watching a match.
LoL has casual appeal and competitive appeal.
SC2 only has competitive appeal. Casuals, like myself, don't last. What's left is raw competitive.
If you find sc2 to be "more lax", seriously, I think you must be playing it wrong.
The more stupid rules you add, the harder it will be to learn. Just widen the lanes and reduce guardian/building health. If that doesn't work, remove all the defensive runes.
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that the majority of people won't bother reading a tooltip.
I'm one of those people. If you can't present your information in a clear, concise and short manner, then screw it, I'll find out by trial and error instead.
You can give people an amazing tutorial system that walks them through the finer points of your map and people will still say "What does X thing that's clearly explained in the tooltip do?".
Any game that needs a tutorial is unintuitive by definition. That's not the player's fault; that's the developer's fault.
If you really must have a tutorial, implement it as a guide to that information when that information is relevent.
Don't put some huge button labeled "Tutorial" which dumps a metric ton of information onto the player that has little or no relevance to their gameplay experience for the next hour.
This is game is freaking awesome....my only question is how you did the terrain as you did ive seen it else where but never really thought about it till now but the game is freakin awesome.
My starting ideas was: Have one class only, that can have all skills/abilities. But we can choose what Natural Ability our Hero will possess. Like: Extra HP Regen, Extra HP, Resist to fire, Resist to ice.
Believe me, I tried that, and it's 10x more work than it first appears. Furthermore the end result isn't even that satisfying. This works for games like Skyrim, but online, we're naturally drawn to prefer roles within a group rather than everyone being jack-of-all-trades.
P.S. I think this is the right section for this thread.
It's not, and before you post it in the right section, you ought to put some effort into your post if you want to attract people who'll put effort into your project.
Secondly, data/triggers make up 99% of a map. You're going to find very few people willing to do everything for your idea.
0
Join a UMS lobby. Invite an AFK friend. You'll see what he means.
0
So it's angry pictionary?
0
I disagree with LoL being "teamplay" orientated. Only the final phase of the game requires much team-work, before that it's either solo or duo, short of organised teams.
What it does, however, is lump you with 4 people you generally don't know and put you in a position where you rely on them to win. I don't think this needs much of an explanation when it comes to rage-induction.
It's "teamplay" orientated insofar as that no matter how good you are, you're probably not going to make up for 1-2 bad team-mates.
0
But can you build on it?
0
LoL has casual appeal and competitive appeal.
SC2 only has competitive appeal. Casuals, like myself, don't last. What's left is raw competitive.
If you find sc2 to be "more lax", seriously, I think you must be playing it wrong.
0
I think that's like asking why marine health is 45 and not 50.
0
The more stupid rules you add, the harder it will be to learn. Just widen the lanes and reduce guardian/building health. If that doesn't work, remove all the defensive runes.
0
But how do I fit a spinning infestor onto that?
0
I think you'd struggle to find a more competitive community than sc2.
0
I hate to agree with you because I think you're hilariously stupid, but I endorse this statement fully.
There's a damn good reason Smashcraft never got past page 5.
0
I'm one of those people. If you can't present your information in a clear, concise and short manner, then screw it, I'll find out by trial and error instead.
Any game that needs a tutorial is unintuitive by definition. That's not the player's fault; that's the developer's fault.
If you really must have a tutorial, implement it as a guide to that information when that information is relevent.
Don't put some huge button labeled "Tutorial" which dumps a metric ton of information onto the player that has little or no relevance to their gameplay experience for the next hour.
Don't mix "critical thinking" with "deciphering bullshit".
0
It's recoloured water and forcefield doodads.
0
Believe me, I tried that, and it's 10x more work than it first appears. Furthermore the end result isn't even that satisfying. This works for games like Skyrim, but online, we're naturally drawn to prefer roles within a group rather than everyone being jack-of-all-trades.
0
It's not, and before you post it in the right section, you ought to put some effort into your post if you want to attract people who'll put effort into your project.
Secondly, data/triggers make up 99% of a map. You're going to find very few people willing to do everything for your idea.
0
Close SC2 entirely before running the test.