>>1107402
>If this was entirely true in a vacuum, then how come CS, DOTA, LOL, or any of the shitty battle royale games keep a constant influx of new players? Because at their extremes, they're sweaty as fuck as well, the best player will win 100% of the game, especially with a large skill discrepancy.
I'd go back to my point about the mental fatigue of the Deadlock.
Yes CS,DOTA, LOL & Battle royales all require focus and skill but typically that's focused in a specific mechanical section.
CS & Battle royales are shooters, you do good positioning and click on heads, have some map knowledge and you're doing alright. Battle royales tend to have more movement techniques. But generally they're more muscle memory and dexterity focused.
DOTA & LOL are MOBAs, you have good game knowledge (most important part), map awareness and macro skills and you're doing alright. More knowledge and analysis focused.
These skillsets are of course demanding things especially at higher levels. But they're focused on mechanics closely clustered. If you're good at shooting and have fast reaction time you can probably move around with bunny hopping or sliding since that's related to muscle memory. If you're good at remembering a lot of item stats and character abilities you can probably analyze them in a match in real time.
Now Deadlock is a combination of all these things. You need positioning, being able to click on heads, have map knowledge, movement techniques, item knowledge, map awareness and macro overview. There is elevation, headshot damage, item spawns, bunny hopping, sliding, wall climbing, wall hopping and many more movement techniques to learn, itemization & keeping track of all players at the same time.
It's a lot more cogs turning and more importantly different parts of the brain, muscle memory, regular memory, dexterity, focus & analysis. More than what an average game demands. Thus it's simply more exhausting to play than an average game. I've heard over and over from friends and people online how draining the game is to play for more than a few matches. You could easily divide Deadlock into two games, which is what it is. Then there would still be plenty of mechanics to explore for a casual or even a veteran.
>This is something that i always wondered about. I can never settle on a single answer, a single aspect, but one thing I'm sure is that it needs a lot of people playing, of all skill levels, but how the hell do you keep those players coming in? Those same players playing even though they're never improving? For reference, there's a ton of people with thousands of hours in league of legends that are hardstuck in BRONZE and IRON. This to me is BAFFLING. How can you spend more time in the game than 99% of the population in it, and STILL be worse than 90% of them as well?
People in general just wanna game for fun, for this they need something that's fairly compartmentalized in skill. The problem with deadlock is that it appeals to many different aspects at the same time and fewer people wanna exercise all those parts at once. You have to "switch gears" more often while playing.
>The game somehow needs to be fun while losing for losers to stay, but pretty much none of the examples I mentioned are fun when losing, quite the opposite in fact, so they must have something else that makes it worth it for bad people to keep playing... Is it social pressure? Grit?
This is done with skillbased matchmaking partially, and being team focused so you can have someone to blame. So usually these people lose and win the same amount while remaining stuck in their tier. Low skill players don't mind playing versus other low skill players.
>Keep in mind that whatever you use to explain how these games do it, it must be applicable to chess as well, which is why I always gravitate to self sustaining popularity through social means. Do you have any other ideas for how to retain bad players long enough for a game to never die?
In chess you mostly focus on knowledge & analysis, so in the sense it's a bit like a MOBA. I think quite a few chess players would enjoy MOBAs or Turn Based Strategy games but fewer of them would enjoy purely FPS games like CS:GO since relatively speaking the skillset required has little to do with knowledge & analysis. So if you make a hybrid game it will just be enjoyable only for a smaller population. The flipside is that for the few people it does appeal to it's very appealing. Chess has SBMM.
>Do you have any other ideas for how to retain bad players long enough for a game to never die?
Skillbased matchmaking does solve this to a certain extend. Though I'm not really a fan of SBMM for other reasons. For this you need a large pool so the gap between individual members in matches is smaller otherwise it turns into veterans bullying noobs. Not an original idea just wanted to add that dimension to it. Some games even mix in bots to have a punching bag.
Tl;dr: People have different skillsets typically clustered in specific closely related areas. If you make a game that require a diverse amount of skills fewer people will enjoy it.