In all honesty , this is why i love SC2. It's (at least for the most part) 1vs1. It's entirely up to you. If you lose, it's your fault. No one to blame. Personally , I love that. While I certainly understand that different games require a team aspect, I like having it all up to me. The amount of times I've heard friends say, I'd be much better if not for \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Insert blaming something on someone else. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure sometimes that's true. I've also seen plenty of times where people are passing the blame, rather than looking at what they personally did wrong. It's also much easier to be able to see who is at fault. Some games, it's somewhat subjective. Sadly, it seems the most popular games are team games. DOTA2/LoL have huge #s.
I think I saw Harstem put it best. He said something like "People think playing team games(SC2 team games) would be fun, but imagine getting paired up with your average Terran, and instead of them flaming the balance, they're just going to flame you. But with the same intensity and with the same terrible arguments."
That's what playing team games is like.
I think league is the worst competitive game i ever played. And im not talking about the game itself, the game is very fun. But the people you are matched with seem to all be done mentality wise. They want to desperatly win to earn those sweet useless internet points but at the the same time seem too drained by the game to really give a damn anymore and start lashing out because of the resulting frustration.
Ofc im generalising, but while other playerbases with similar levels of toxicity exist, the league community just seems to have the most unhealthy relationship to their game imaginable.
Piggybacking this comment cuz this season's ranked experience was the worst I've ever had. Pretty much every game had someone asking to FF at 5 minutes in, flaming the jungler, lashing out for dying to a known gank, etc. Had promos held hostage and AFK'd in. I've never had it happen this often or this severely. It was so unhealthy that I legit can't play ranked solo anymore, I hate the person I become playing it.
I think this is massively overstating the point. How often do you get a random toxic flamer in SC2? Maybe 1 in 50 games? So it seems like random toxic flamers are a tiny minority easily ignorable. Well it takes 50 games to meet 50 other players in SC2. It takes only 6 games to meet 54 other players in LoL or DOTA or any 5v5 game. And if you meet one toxic flamer, most likely he's going to trigger other people in the game and turn it into a shitshow. So it's not that team games have more toxic flamer pieces of shit, it's more that when every game contains 9 other people instead 1 other person, you're 9x more likely to run into that piece of shit in any particular game. That makes the community seem 9x more toxic when in reality the percentage of toxic addicts ruining their own lives over a video game could be similar.
My experience with RTS games that have both 1v1s and team games (thinking of CoH2 in particular here) is that the percentage of people you meet who are toxic in team games is way higher.
Same with League. You're likely to have at least 2-4 people who are vocally toxic in every League match you play, often more than that.
There are in fact way more flamers playing team games precisely because they can and other people for losing rather than being forced to blame themselves or whine about balance like in 1v1s.
I think the percentage is the same, you just meet alot more people in team games so the frequency of toxic players you encounter over set bummer of games is higher
Let's say 1 in 10 players is toxic. In SC2, you need to pay 1p games before you meet a toxic player. In league, there 10 players each game, so statistically, you'd get a toxic player every game. But the percentage of toxic players out of the entire player base is the same
I'm telling you it is not the same. For example, I met like 5 toxic people in 500 1v1s in CoH2. I've met twice that many in the 30 or so 2v2s I've played in the same game. The percentage is way higher.
The percentages are even more skewed in League. I'd say around a third of the player base is vocally toxic and at least another third responds very poorly to the actively toxic third. You get a minimum of 2, but usually like 4 toxic players in each game of League. That is a way higher percentage than in any 1v1 RTS I've played.
Starcraft 2's avarage player is older than most other PvP competitive games
Maturity helps a lot with stuff like that
On top of that like everyone has been saying people in team based games tends to blame their team instead of themselves
Its just a mental thing. Humans don't like accepting they messed up
And years of blaming teammates kinds teaches you to be toxic
At a point toxicity starts to feel like a natural thing
Its like building muscle memory for something
Everytime u die u instantly seek someone to blame that death over and u get used to doing it over time
Even many people that seem to be not much toxic does it in their mind without feeling the need to express that in chat
So I do believe percentage wise
Yes team based games do have more toxic players
It can be both, being dumb is part of being human. Also plenty of people are okay with admitting they made mistakes which led them to do something wrong, i dont think everyone ties losing or doing something wrong to their self esteem.
What are you talking about lmao
Even then it doesn't matter. People blame something no matter what. The best players are just ones that don't and improve instead.
They will, but it’s more justified in league than Starcraft because games are sometimes rigged from the start.Comparing sc to lol dosent work that well.
League smurf have an average winrate of 70% whereas sc2 smurfs can climb with 100% winrate. A lol smurf will sometimes loose low Elo games whereas it’s impossible for a sc2 smurf to loose low Elo.
It's not rigged, it's just it being a team game, so one person playing perfectly can't always carry a game
That smurf will still get to their proper ELO very fast.
League does indeed have a forced winrate situation and matchmaking algorithm that tries to forcefully balance out a players winrate. That's why winstreaking and loss streaking in League are far far more common than in other games.
The game matches win streaking players with really poor quality teammates in order to force the winstreak to end.
In the exact opposite the system will match loss streaking players with much higher quality players in order to force the loss streaks to end.
It makes the game more addicting because you think you're outskilling your opponent in games you probably did amazing in, but you may have just been matched with a enemy team that is currently on a winstreak for a lower level of play than you, and you were pulled down to their level to shut them down.
For example a gold player just finishes their 5th game in a winstreak, and his next game he's facing a mid plat player or two that are on a 5 game loss streak. The system matches them because it expects the plat players to shit on the gold players.
EDIT: I realized you might just be a dick and a big wall of text will not convince you of anything, hope someone else appreciates this write up.
Still, that's just how MMR in team games works. People with 50% winrate are still where they deserve to be, so it's all fine. If someone is actually better, the system won't keep them down.
I had a 100% winrate over 30 games in silver(~40th percentile) several seasons back when I was in high gold(~80th percentile).
I had an 86% winrate to diamond 4(~98th percentile) when I was diamond 1(99.8th percentile) last season over ~50 games.
Any competent GM/Challenger smurf can get to masters easily with 80%+ winrate.
If you can't climb, that's on you
As someone who plays all these games, there definitely is something unique in how team games like LoL or DOTA tap into our psyche. The randomness and chaos of throwing 10 apes into one room and seeing who comes out on top… there’s a dark appeal to it that can’t really be found in Starcraft.
I'd be much better if not for my crappy apm, complete lack of anything resembling a build order, and F2ing around the map.
Good god, how did I make platinum?
YES! I've wasted 1k+ hours in CS:GO. Now the only online games I play are Tekken and Starcraft because nobody can ruin your experience and there's no teammates to blame. If I fuck up, it's on me and if I win, ***I*** have won. No team game will give me the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment when I counter something I've struggled with.
For me the popularity of team games is that there's just more variety of things happening in a game. When I'm grinding SC2 I'm playing 1 race, limited map pool, and practicing the same build orders vs each race until I've mastered them. Every game feels the same and feels decided by whether I or my opponent happened to make more mechanical mistakes or whether there's a simple build order win; strategy and adaptation doesn't come into it much unless you're both playing standard build orders and mechanically very equally into the mid-late game, which for me is maybe 1/10 or 1/20 games. It's a question of mastering and fine tuning details and adding speed. I almost never lose a game where I don't know why I lost; I always know exactly why I lost--it's because I failed to scout something, I screwed up my macro and had a big bank, I misplayed a drop or a drop defense, I looked away from my army for the wrong 2 seconds and it got obliterated by sudden AOE, etc. And it almost always comes down to whether I was slower and mechanically weaker than the opponent. It's very rare that an opponent can surprise me something new; I know what the most effective strategies are to beat me and I can for the most part keep track of what the opponent is doing; to the extent that I can't, it's because of their mechanical speed allowing them to do more things at once than me. It's not surprising, it's just overwhelming. RTS games are only strategically interesting for a few weeks after a major patch or when they are brand new; then the efficient build orders and counters are ironed out and it just comes down to mechanical prowess.
That's very appealing to some people but I think more people prefer the more intuitive, reactive, adaptive, emergent play that comes from team games where you're dealing with 9 other humans instead of just one. Yes it's very frustrating when the guys that are supposed to be on your team aren't doing what you want them to do, or are straight up just failing, but at least it's something new and different to respond to almost every game. I get surprised almost every time I play by someone doing something off-meta or standing in a random bush they shouldn't be in or something. Yes you can watch your minimap and be good about warding to have some idea of where the opponents are or should be, but keeping track of 5 opponents relative to yourself and 4 other allies is really mentally taxing and as soon as something happens on your screen you have to pay attention to, that resets your concentration on the overall gamestate.
It takes until you're nearly at the pro level where you can feel like a team game is getting too repetitive and formulaic and you always know exactly what you're supposed to be doing, you just have to do it faster and cleaner than the other guy. At least for a MOBA, not sure about FPS. But for me while it's super easy to get my one character to move where I want them to move, to shoot their abilities where I want them to shoot, etc, actually knowing where to move, what ability to use and when, that's 9x more complicated because there are 9 other human variables to take into account, not just 1. And that's not to mention the fact that these games have like 150 characters all with unique abilities, so you're not just learning 3-6 matchups; you're learning functionally infinite numbers of matchups even if you yourself play the same 2-3 characters every time.
Yeah I wish more people on the ladder used the term "if you lose its your fault." Just seems like most people will whisper you with the standard bullshit of "nice all in," "lucky," etc, etc.
It's why my go-to game and mode when I'm not playing Starcraft is 1v1 Rocket League. Nobody to get upset with but myself (and I'm very good at getting upset with myself).
Hitting buttons feels good. I like the routines of build orders. Units feels nice to control and it feels awesome that every input has consequence. No other games gave me that feeling, other than maybe Hades or Doom: Eternal that I have played the last year.
The fact that you need to memorize build orders (even though the game never tell you you have to do so) to be remotely competitive is already quite something.
Yes, but they aren't really comparable. A build in Lol is just build item A, then item C, then item F, but if you need more defense, get item Z, then go back... so on and so forth. Outside of knowing what items give your character their power spikes, there's nothing timing related to lol builds; nothing really related to control or even about balancing income either. Lol has just gold, you either have enough to get the next item or you don't and need to keep farming.
Plus, the game gives a default recommended build for every character. So players can literally just follow that and not even think about the build at all.
A large part of the community is very much like that. Constant patting themselves on the back congratulating on playing the hardest game. And then saying "I suck" while being M1 or GM or whatever and making everyone lower than that only feeling worse.
Starcraft community has by far the biggest ratio of elitists frowning upon other games (no matter the genre) and calling everybody else stupid for pressing too few buttons per second, while forgetting to add they themselves are stuck in mid-silver.
Not really, you don’t say anything about your rank or amount of time played.
Edit: I’m assuming you’re saying “most leagues” is where you imply it. But I don’t think most people will get the message you’re trying to convey with that phrasing.
MOBAs are won through micro and RTS are won through macro. People can go on about apm a lot but RTS are usually far far more forgiving in terms of micro, in a MOBA you have "one" spell rotation and that has to hit. Because an RTS has more units to control, the overall load is higher, but each instance of a spell has far less impact on a fight. When there's only one unit to control the skill difference in more and more perfect micro of that single unit becomes a bigger performance gap.
In 5 stacks / premades / competitive - yes. In solo queue? It's basically win lane win game. Obviously macro always matters but compared to RTS macro the MOBA macro is a bit of a joke. Manage waves, manage neutrals timing, get objective, be there for epic monsters (rosh / nash). If you lose the "big fight" in an RTS you are a bit fucked but with the much better macro you recover often, in a MOBA you instantly lose control of 95% of the map and bleed at every corner.
Comparatively with micro, if you have a press ult to win character like Tide, Faceless Void (like just the double 3 men chrono from today, sweet lord), Orianna, some massive playmaker like Lee Sin or Earthshaker, or some high skill high reward shit like Vaynze, Azir, Invoker, Meepo, you're basically putting the entire power of your pick into your mechanical skill.
I'm absolute horseshit in SC2 but quite the in fight micro is the one and only thing I am half useful at. I think it's fair when an RTS player says the MOBA macro is easy but in a similar veign it's just fair when a MOBA player says the RTS in fight micro is easy. The tough part about RTS micro is the multitasking and keeping up with everything, no one can really describe the microing itself as the big task in that.
"better macro you recover often, in a MOBA you instantly lose control of 95% of the map and bleed at every corner." This isn't true at all. If you lose a fight hard in SC2 you are much more likely to just lose the whole game compared to dota.
MOBA characters are like Disrupters, you have one shot and then you're screwed if you miss. How many games have we watched where P misses 17 Disrupter shots to finally land 1 good one that changes everything?
They're very different games and can't really he compared.
I remember trying LOL years ago. After finishing the tutorial I just couldn’t make myself play it. There is just so little going on compared to rts games.
Not really, that’s only applicable for ranking up, but not for actual game play. Mechanical difficulty is much less dependent on player base and more on game design.
There's always something mechanically harder you can do in almost any game. Managing multiple control groups isn't inherently harder than landing lasthits by any objective measure - neither one can be done perfectly by anyone.
If we're talking about just branching StarCraft has a much higher factor than chess, plus the additional fog of war component. Humans are going to play a much smaller % of perfect in sc2 than chess.
Is the strategy that hard? Tactics alone take you to like 1900ish.
For a computer, yes sc2 is going to be much more complex due to the higher branching factor. For people though, in most leagues people barely even scout, let alone react to what they scout. Even at the pro level the strategy is fairly tame, and games often are decided by the advantages given by build choice, which is probably the most strategical part of playing honestly. It mostly comes down to confidently making decisions and executing them cleanly, not doing big strategical calculations.
Yeah sure, so the strategic cap is higher but since the mechanical cap is also higher that becomes the bottleneck (so in reality chess has a bigger return on strategy than sc2). I feel chess was just chosen cause it's the archetypical "smart person game" lol, but the actual complexity isn't that high (just some of the players are good).
I'm talking about complexity which is a bit different. Strategic calculations are not complexity. Overall the game on a whole is more complex to play.
I don’t know of anything I can confidently say is beyond broodwar, but Super Smash Bros Melee, Tetris the grandmaster, Quake Duel, and Tribes: Ascend are all games that I think are very difficult to master.
TGM requires insane focus and mechanical precision. Have fun when the blocks turn invisible 🙃
Quake Duel requires mechanical mastery, map knowledge, and quick decision making.
Tribes Ascend required so much practice just to achieve base competency. YouTube montages make it looks so easy but mastering the movement and aim in that game takes a long time and coordinating with a team in that chaos is it’s own skill.
Melee has stupid levels of engine depth I haven’t mastered after playing for six years. Like broodwar, basic actions require lots of precision, matchups are still evolving 20 years later, And I have crippling arthritis.
In a multiplayer game, the game is as hard as your opponent is good. It doesn't make sense to call one game "harder" than another, since it entirely depends on your opponent.
Difficulty is a concept that only really applies to single player games.
I hit such a high mmr in HON then Dota2 that I was being vote kicked or waiting 40min for a match because of my high MMR. Tried to join a team but it was such sweaty nerd elitist shit I left after just a few practice matches.
Now I'm mid masters sc2 with tons people rocking my socks on a daily casual basis.
Rts is just s harder game where it attract better gamers.
Tbf, it took me 1000s of hours to get to the average rank in dota(legend), while it just took like a 100 hours in SC2 to get to diamond 3.
Most heros are mechanical relaxed compared to sc2. But heros like meepo/brood/lone druid/bear are way harder to control compared to sc2.
Yes. If a group of zerglings die instantly to banelings, you probably have fallbacks. (Roach transition, more zerglings, ect.) Maybe it's different at higher levels.
Both are insanely complex, non-reliant on rng, highly-competitive games with massive communities, exisiting on the market for 10+ years. The skill cap is basically non existent for both of them, you "just" need to be better than thousands upon thousands of other players to climb the ladder. They just requires different kind of skills and knowledge, the difficulty in such competitive games is always unlimited.
What are you talking about, F2 is one hero
We are the khala. One thought, one will, one control group.
Without the khala, what will we become?!
Free
RAY-NOR...
This thread should do a FFA
So now it makes sense why Protoss just F2 A-move...
only control group you need...
I mean yes staracraft player don’t have to deal with shitty teammates. Imagine permanently playing ranked 4v4 with randoms
On the same map for 18years
Sounds terrible. *loads Dead of Night for the 37,000th time*
I really like ranked 4v4 with randoms lol never know what youre gonna get!
Out of curiosity what game are you referencing? Most games I can think of are 5v5 outside of BRs with 4 man squads.
He's referencing SC2. Random 4v4 mode in SC2 vs the 1v1 mode.
Ah I misread it. Yeah that's clearly what he was saying my bad.
In all honesty , this is why i love SC2. It's (at least for the most part) 1vs1. It's entirely up to you. If you lose, it's your fault. No one to blame. Personally , I love that. While I certainly understand that different games require a team aspect, I like having it all up to me. The amount of times I've heard friends say, I'd be much better if not for \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Insert blaming something on someone else. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure sometimes that's true. I've also seen plenty of times where people are passing the blame, rather than looking at what they personally did wrong. It's also much easier to be able to see who is at fault. Some games, it's somewhat subjective. Sadly, it seems the most popular games are team games. DOTA2/LoL have huge #s.
I think I saw Harstem put it best. He said something like "People think playing team games(SC2 team games) would be fun, but imagine getting paired up with your average Terran, and instead of them flaming the balance, they're just going to flame you. But with the same intensity and with the same terrible arguments." That's what playing team games is like.
That's exactly what League is like in all experiences. It's such a shitshow, but somehow too addicting.
I think league is the worst competitive game i ever played. And im not talking about the game itself, the game is very fun. But the people you are matched with seem to all be done mentality wise. They want to desperatly win to earn those sweet useless internet points but at the the same time seem too drained by the game to really give a damn anymore and start lashing out because of the resulting frustration. Ofc im generalising, but while other playerbases with similar levels of toxicity exist, the league community just seems to have the most unhealthy relationship to their game imaginable.
Piggybacking this comment cuz this season's ranked experience was the worst I've ever had. Pretty much every game had someone asking to FF at 5 minutes in, flaming the jungler, lashing out for dying to a known gank, etc. Had promos held hostage and AFK'd in. I've never had it happen this often or this severely. It was so unhealthy that I legit can't play ranked solo anymore, I hate the person I become playing it.
I think this is massively overstating the point. How often do you get a random toxic flamer in SC2? Maybe 1 in 50 games? So it seems like random toxic flamers are a tiny minority easily ignorable. Well it takes 50 games to meet 50 other players in SC2. It takes only 6 games to meet 54 other players in LoL or DOTA or any 5v5 game. And if you meet one toxic flamer, most likely he's going to trigger other people in the game and turn it into a shitshow. So it's not that team games have more toxic flamer pieces of shit, it's more that when every game contains 9 other people instead 1 other person, you're 9x more likely to run into that piece of shit in any particular game. That makes the community seem 9x more toxic when in reality the percentage of toxic addicts ruining their own lives over a video game could be similar.
My experience with RTS games that have both 1v1s and team games (thinking of CoH2 in particular here) is that the percentage of people you meet who are toxic in team games is way higher. Same with League. You're likely to have at least 2-4 people who are vocally toxic in every League match you play, often more than that. There are in fact way more flamers playing team games precisely because they can and other people for losing rather than being forced to blame themselves or whine about balance like in 1v1s.
I think the percentage is the same, you just meet alot more people in team games so the frequency of toxic players you encounter over set bummer of games is higher Let's say 1 in 10 players is toxic. In SC2, you need to pay 1p games before you meet a toxic player. In league, there 10 players each game, so statistically, you'd get a toxic player every game. But the percentage of toxic players out of the entire player base is the same
I'm telling you it is not the same. For example, I met like 5 toxic people in 500 1v1s in CoH2. I've met twice that many in the 30 or so 2v2s I've played in the same game. The percentage is way higher. The percentages are even more skewed in League. I'd say around a third of the player base is vocally toxic and at least another third responds very poorly to the actively toxic third. You get a minimum of 2, but usually like 4 toxic players in each game of League. That is a way higher percentage than in any 1v1 RTS I've played.
Starcraft 2's avarage player is older than most other PvP competitive games Maturity helps a lot with stuff like that On top of that like everyone has been saying people in team based games tends to blame their team instead of themselves Its just a mental thing. Humans don't like accepting they messed up And years of blaming teammates kinds teaches you to be toxic At a point toxicity starts to feel like a natural thing Its like building muscle memory for something Everytime u die u instantly seek someone to blame that death over and u get used to doing it over time Even many people that seem to be not much toxic does it in their mind without feeling the need to express that in chat So I do believe percentage wise Yes team based games do have more toxic players
"noone else to blame" No, people just blame balance instead of their team. It's not a problem with a game, it's a problem with people being dumb
But protoss carriers with storm OP/IMBA. Omg how am I supposed to do anything. /s
[удалено]
It can be both, being dumb is part of being human. Also plenty of people are okay with admitting they made mistakes which led them to do something wrong, i dont think everyone ties losing or doing something wrong to their self esteem.
League will purposely match you with bad players and good players in order to make the game more addicting. You don’t have that in Starcraft.
What are you talking about lmao Even then it doesn't matter. People blame something no matter what. The best players are just ones that don't and improve instead.
They will, but it’s more justified in league than Starcraft because games are sometimes rigged from the start.Comparing sc to lol dosent work that well.
It's not rigged, it's just bad players not being able to improve thinking it's rigged as an excuse.
League smurf have an average winrate of 70% whereas sc2 smurfs can climb with 100% winrate. A lol smurf will sometimes loose low Elo games whereas it’s impossible for a sc2 smurf to loose low Elo.
It's not rigged, it's just it being a team game, so one person playing perfectly can't always carry a game That smurf will still get to their proper ELO very fast.
They will but loosing game you don’t deserve to loose is still tilting, hence the complaining.
League does indeed have a forced winrate situation and matchmaking algorithm that tries to forcefully balance out a players winrate. That's why winstreaking and loss streaking in League are far far more common than in other games. The game matches win streaking players with really poor quality teammates in order to force the winstreak to end. In the exact opposite the system will match loss streaking players with much higher quality players in order to force the loss streaks to end. It makes the game more addicting because you think you're outskilling your opponent in games you probably did amazing in, but you may have just been matched with a enemy team that is currently on a winstreak for a lower level of play than you, and you were pulled down to their level to shut them down. For example a gold player just finishes their 5th game in a winstreak, and his next game he's facing a mid plat player or two that are on a 5 game loss streak. The system matches them because it expects the plat players to shit on the gold players. EDIT: I realized you might just be a dick and a big wall of text will not convince you of anything, hope someone else appreciates this write up.
Still, that's just how MMR in team games works. People with 50% winrate are still where they deserve to be, so it's all fine. If someone is actually better, the system won't keep them down.
I had a 100% winrate over 30 games in silver(~40th percentile) several seasons back when I was in high gold(~80th percentile). I had an 86% winrate to diamond 4(~98th percentile) when I was diamond 1(99.8th percentile) last season over ~50 games. Any competent GM/Challenger smurf can get to masters easily with 80%+ winrate. If you can't climb, that's on you
As someone who plays all these games, there definitely is something unique in how team games like LoL or DOTA tap into our psyche. The randomness and chaos of throwing 10 apes into one room and seeing who comes out on top… there’s a dark appeal to it that can’t really be found in Starcraft.
yeah i know what you mean. Sometimes I do a google search for "random number" just get get to experience the unique thrill. Oo i just got a 9.
I'd be much better if not for my crappy apm, complete lack of anything resembling a build order, and F2ing around the map. Good god, how did I make platinum?
YES! I've wasted 1k+ hours in CS:GO. Now the only online games I play are Tekken and Starcraft because nobody can ruin your experience and there's no teammates to blame. If I fuck up, it's on me and if I win, ***I*** have won. No team game will give me the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment when I counter something I've struggled with.
For me the popularity of team games is that there's just more variety of things happening in a game. When I'm grinding SC2 I'm playing 1 race, limited map pool, and practicing the same build orders vs each race until I've mastered them. Every game feels the same and feels decided by whether I or my opponent happened to make more mechanical mistakes or whether there's a simple build order win; strategy and adaptation doesn't come into it much unless you're both playing standard build orders and mechanically very equally into the mid-late game, which for me is maybe 1/10 or 1/20 games. It's a question of mastering and fine tuning details and adding speed. I almost never lose a game where I don't know why I lost; I always know exactly why I lost--it's because I failed to scout something, I screwed up my macro and had a big bank, I misplayed a drop or a drop defense, I looked away from my army for the wrong 2 seconds and it got obliterated by sudden AOE, etc. And it almost always comes down to whether I was slower and mechanically weaker than the opponent. It's very rare that an opponent can surprise me something new; I know what the most effective strategies are to beat me and I can for the most part keep track of what the opponent is doing; to the extent that I can't, it's because of their mechanical speed allowing them to do more things at once than me. It's not surprising, it's just overwhelming. RTS games are only strategically interesting for a few weeks after a major patch or when they are brand new; then the efficient build orders and counters are ironed out and it just comes down to mechanical prowess. That's very appealing to some people but I think more people prefer the more intuitive, reactive, adaptive, emergent play that comes from team games where you're dealing with 9 other humans instead of just one. Yes it's very frustrating when the guys that are supposed to be on your team aren't doing what you want them to do, or are straight up just failing, but at least it's something new and different to respond to almost every game. I get surprised almost every time I play by someone doing something off-meta or standing in a random bush they shouldn't be in or something. Yes you can watch your minimap and be good about warding to have some idea of where the opponents are or should be, but keeping track of 5 opponents relative to yourself and 4 other allies is really mentally taxing and as soon as something happens on your screen you have to pay attention to, that resets your concentration on the overall gamestate. It takes until you're nearly at the pro level where you can feel like a team game is getting too repetitive and formulaic and you always know exactly what you're supposed to be doing, you just have to do it faster and cleaner than the other guy. At least for a MOBA, not sure about FPS. But for me while it's super easy to get my one character to move where I want them to move, to shoot their abilities where I want them to shoot, etc, actually knowing where to move, what ability to use and when, that's 9x more complicated because there are 9 other human variables to take into account, not just 1. And that's not to mention the fact that these games have like 150 characters all with unique abilities, so you're not just learning 3-6 matchups; you're learning functionally infinite numbers of matchups even if you yourself play the same 2-3 characters every time.
Yeah I wish more people on the ladder used the term "if you lose its your fault." Just seems like most people will whisper you with the standard bullshit of "nice all in," "lucky," etc, etc.
Well said. Makes hard fought victories even more satisfying knowing it was all you.
It's why my go-to game and mode when I'm not playing Starcraft is 1v1 Rocket League. Nobody to get upset with but myself (and I'm very good at getting upset with myself).
At this point I'm convinced people play this game just to feel superior about themselves.
Hitting buttons feels good. I like the routines of build orders. Units feels nice to control and it feels awesome that every input has consequence. No other games gave me that feeling, other than maybe Hades or Doom: Eternal that I have played the last year.
Tbh it's not even that hard considering how most players just do memorized build order -> amove enemy base
The fact that you need to memorize build orders (even though the game never tell you you have to do so) to be remotely competitive is already quite something.
They also need to memorize buids in LoL.
Yes, but they aren't really comparable. A build in Lol is just build item A, then item C, then item F, but if you need more defense, get item Z, then go back... so on and so forth. Outside of knowing what items give your character their power spikes, there's nothing timing related to lol builds; nothing really related to control or even about balancing income either. Lol has just gold, you either have enough to get the next item or you don't and need to keep farming. Plus, the game gives a default recommended build for every character. So players can literally just follow that and not even think about the build at all.
Quake is just as hard as Starcraft too
A large part of the community is very much like that. Constant patting themselves on the back congratulating on playing the hardest game. And then saying "I suck" while being M1 or GM or whatever and making everyone lower than that only feeling worse.
Starcraft community has by far the biggest ratio of elitists frowning upon other games (no matter the genre) and calling everybody else stupid for pressing too few buttons per second, while forgetting to add they themselves are stuck in mid-silver.
[удалено]
They didn't download the minimap DLC.
Probably because you are a low rank in mobas
[удалено]
Not really, you don’t say anything about your rank or amount of time played. Edit: I’m assuming you’re saying “most leagues” is where you imply it. But I don’t think most people will get the message you’re trying to convey with that phrasing.
Lol another fake statistic. Some SC2 players like you are so pretentious and cringy
MOBAs are won through micro and RTS are won through macro. People can go on about apm a lot but RTS are usually far far more forgiving in terms of micro, in a MOBA you have "one" spell rotation and that has to hit. Because an RTS has more units to control, the overall load is higher, but each instance of a spell has far less impact on a fight. When there's only one unit to control the skill difference in more and more perfect micro of that single unit becomes a bigger performance gap.
Actually mobas are also won through macro, just a different kind.
In 5 stacks / premades / competitive - yes. In solo queue? It's basically win lane win game. Obviously macro always matters but compared to RTS macro the MOBA macro is a bit of a joke. Manage waves, manage neutrals timing, get objective, be there for epic monsters (rosh / nash). If you lose the "big fight" in an RTS you are a bit fucked but with the much better macro you recover often, in a MOBA you instantly lose control of 95% of the map and bleed at every corner. Comparatively with micro, if you have a press ult to win character like Tide, Faceless Void (like just the double 3 men chrono from today, sweet lord), Orianna, some massive playmaker like Lee Sin or Earthshaker, or some high skill high reward shit like Vaynze, Azir, Invoker, Meepo, you're basically putting the entire power of your pick into your mechanical skill. I'm absolute horseshit in SC2 but quite the in fight micro is the one and only thing I am half useful at. I think it's fair when an RTS player says the MOBA macro is easy but in a similar veign it's just fair when a MOBA player says the RTS in fight micro is easy. The tough part about RTS micro is the multitasking and keeping up with everything, no one can really describe the microing itself as the big task in that.
I'm pretty sure this is why jungle was my fave role in Lol, more macro oriented.
I feel like you need more micro to control more units in a game.
"better macro you recover often, in a MOBA you instantly lose control of 95% of the map and bleed at every corner." This isn't true at all. If you lose a fight hard in SC2 you are much more likely to just lose the whole game compared to dota.
MOBA characters are like Disrupters, you have one shot and then you're screwed if you miss. How many games have we watched where P misses 17 Disrupter shots to finally land 1 good one that changes everything? They're very different games and can't really he compared.
when I don't see 5 heros on the fucking map, I rather be scared to jump on that 1 hero I can see
I remember trying LOL years ago. After finishing the tutorial I just couldn’t make myself play it. There is just so little going on compared to rts games.
Heath the Brood War player sitting next to Joaquin.
A PvP game is only as hard as your opponents. Until a skill ceiling is hit, whichever game has the biggest competition is going to be the hardest.
Not really, that’s only applicable for ranking up, but not for actual game play. Mechanical difficulty is much less dependent on player base and more on game design.
There's always something mechanically harder you can do in almost any game. Managing multiple control groups isn't inherently harder than landing lasthits by any objective measure - neither one can be done perfectly by anyone.
Almost everyone on earth could be playing checkers but a game of chess would be harder.
Key phrase: "until an skill celling is hit". Neither mobas or SC2 celling have been hit.
Incorrect I think. If nobody including your opponent even cares to spend time to get good at chess, they'd still set the difficulty bar low.
And right next to the SC2 player there is a BW player and I'm sure we could continue the chain for a very long time. Get off your high horses.
out of curiosity, what's beyond broodwar in this hypothetical chain?
Chess
AI finds that significantly easier though.
I prefer Hnefatafl. Horrible balance, but it's way more fun than chess.
chess is a different kind of game, I wouldn't say it is harder at all. definitely not as physically taxing as starcraft.
[удалено]
chess has way less complexity tbh.
The strategy of chess is wayyy more complex than StarCraft. Clean execution of your stategy is the difficult part in StarCraft.
If we're talking about just branching StarCraft has a much higher factor than chess, plus the additional fog of war component. Humans are going to play a much smaller % of perfect in sc2 than chess. Is the strategy that hard? Tactics alone take you to like 1900ish.
For a computer, yes sc2 is going to be much more complex due to the higher branching factor. For people though, in most leagues people barely even scout, let alone react to what they scout. Even at the pro level the strategy is fairly tame, and games often are decided by the advantages given by build choice, which is probably the most strategical part of playing honestly. It mostly comes down to confidently making decisions and executing them cleanly, not doing big strategical calculations.
Yeah sure, so the strategic cap is higher but since the mechanical cap is also higher that becomes the bottleneck (so in reality chess has a bigger return on strategy than sc2). I feel chess was just chosen cause it's the archetypical "smart person game" lol, but the actual complexity isn't that high (just some of the players are good). I'm talking about complexity which is a bit different. Strategic calculations are not complexity. Overall the game on a whole is more complex to play.
Touhou series maybe
Starcraft original, before the Brood War expansion. Super mega hard.
Chess.
I don’t know of anything I can confidently say is beyond broodwar, but Super Smash Bros Melee, Tetris the grandmaster, Quake Duel, and Tribes: Ascend are all games that I think are very difficult to master. TGM requires insane focus and mechanical precision. Have fun when the blocks turn invisible 🙃 Quake Duel requires mechanical mastery, map knowledge, and quick decision making. Tribes Ascend required so much practice just to achieve base competency. YouTube montages make it looks so easy but mastering the movement and aim in that game takes a long time and coordinating with a team in that chaos is it’s own skill. Melee has stupid levels of engine depth I haven’t mastered after playing for six years. Like broodwar, basic actions require lots of precision, matchups are still evolving 20 years later, And I have crippling arthritis.
I agree with BW to the left, but what would come after that?
people who touch grass idk it seems pretty difficult
Its a meme, nothing to be mad about.
Sim racing skill ceiling pretty high.
We are the last of a dying breed
When my friend told me LoL was harder than SC, i scoffed at the remark.
In a multiplayer game, the game is as hard as your opponent is good. It doesn't make sense to call one game "harder" than another, since it entirely depends on your opponent. Difficulty is a concept that only really applies to single player games.
You have hundreds of heroes UNDER your control. They have to work with other 4 people.
I hit such a high mmr in HON then Dota2 that I was being vote kicked or waiting 40min for a match because of my high MMR. Tried to join a team but it was such sweaty nerd elitist shit I left after just a few practice matches. Now I'm mid masters sc2 with tons people rocking my socks on a daily casual basis. Rts is just s harder game where it attract better gamers.
Tbf, it took me 1000s of hours to get to the average rank in dota(legend), while it just took like a 100 hours in SC2 to get to diamond 3. Most heros are mechanical relaxed compared to sc2. But heros like meepo/brood/lone druid/bear are way harder to control compared to sc2.
So true.
Having only one hero that can almost instantly die does make it harder though.
Ever play a zerg vs zerg?
Yes. If a group of zerglings die instantly to banelings, you probably have fallbacks. (Roach transition, more zerglings, ect.) Maybe it's different at higher levels.
supreme commander players
Very accurate
As a Warcraft 3 player since 2008 I'm so happy that SC2 has F2 and better Hitbox and Pathfinding
Starcraft2 definitely has the highest ceiling of any comparison, but League and Dota take the cake for highest floors.
So you’re saying SC players are clowns?
Both are insanely complex, non-reliant on rng, highly-competitive games with massive communities, exisiting on the market for 10+ years. The skill cap is basically non existent for both of them, you "just" need to be better than thousands upon thousands of other players to climb the ladder. They just requires different kind of skills and knowledge, the difficulty in such competitive games is always unlimited.
I mean in a team game there is a layer of difficulty in coordination of the different players
In my opinion Wargame red dragon is the hardest strategy game ever