Multiplayer Games and Me

[Skyblade]

Wasn't sure if this belonged here, or in Eyes on Each Other, but I'll put it here for now.

This idea was initiated by the Starcraft II Beta, but it really covers a number of PvP multiplayer games.

Anyway, the new Battle.net system ranks you into leagues depending on your performance in past battles. Mostly win/loss ratio. After I finally got through the practice and placement battles (which were almost painful to play), I wound up in the Copper League (pretty sure it's the lowest league there is). Despite being ranked in here, I found myself getting crushed by most people I played against. But there was a change. The skill level was indeed lower, and I could better analyze my losses and playstyles. What I uncovered explained part of why I lost, and why I dislike PvP in games: It's too fast paced.

Rushing early, keeping pressure on, and ending the game as soon as possible are the primary strategies for virtually every player. I tried out similar ideas, and, yep, I did better. I also found that I wasn't having fun. I didn't like the faster pace, the intense focus, or the gameplay limitations you have to go through to be successful in PvP.

And this applies to other games as well. To be successful in PvP, you have to play a particular way, whether you enjoy it or not. AI has not gotten that rigid. Against a computer I find myself able to play in styles I enjoy more. I can take an hour to set up if I want, and not be overwhelmed while doing so. I can relax and enjoy the game, not just engage in a relentless sprint to the end.

[Bolivar]

I agree with most of what you're saying and it's something that's especially inherent to RTS games. You first, before anything, have to first learn to prevent a rush, and then you have to learn to prevent the specific rushes that are becoming popular. You need to play along with and in response to the popular play styles people are using. However, even if you prevent a first-five-minute-decided match, it's still an endless sprint to win and it can become exhausting when you get into stalemates that last 30-40 minutes.

But that's what RTS is really about, for better or for worse.

I used to play Command & Conquer just for fun, but ended up losing a lot. I then started going to fansites to learn about the specific play styles and taking the advice to watch your replays to see what you did wrong and what your opponent did right. You do become better. Like I previously said, the game is still an exhaustive sprint to winning and it can take a lot out of you when you find someone you're evenly matched again. But truthfully I took a lot of enjoyment out of it. You're really becoming part of a community, but more than that, you're watching a game grow as an organic thing.

A lot of the strategies that come after a few weeks of RTS play are things the developers never imagined. While they thought they created a balanced game, some units get discarded and others are shamefully exploited. It's just how it goes. But I do feel you get to a point where you get to your own play-style you can be comfortable with, and then start to shape the "meta-game" (the aggregate of all the games being played that results in dominant play styles) yourself. I honestly feel it's very rewarding.

I guess it's just a price you have to pay and these games certainly aren't for everyone. I haven't played Starcraft II yet, and I honestly always liked C&C more, but it seems like it's going to be a better alternative considering how other EoFFers have pointed out to me how they've butchered C&C.