Competitive games with simple rules but steep learning curve

[May90]

Now you're starting to ask for something that doesn't exist. Anything that can be genuinely, seriously competitive is going to have an enormous amount of theory work behind it involving the breakdown of every possible strategy in that game. If it doesn't have that major theory work behind it, then it isn't a seriously competitive game.

And you can bet that includes card games. Oh god does it include card games...

Well, that's not exactly what I meant... I feel that my original post is too big and ambiguous, but I just can't write short posts, so sorry if there is some misunderstanding.

I would love a game with as much theory as possible. But I would also love if this theory wasn't meant to be just memorized, but rather experienced on practice. In Chess, there are millions of opening variations you need just to memorize, as there is no way you will understand each of them and experience on practice in many games in 1000 lifetimes. This is because there are too many possible variations in Chess: the game is complex from this point of view, and that's why I originally asked for games with as simple rules as possible.
I would prefer a game with less variations but bigger depth of each of them. In Poker, I believe, you have always 2-3 possible actions, and that's it. So on a high level every one of these actions is full of depth. You don't memorize millions of variations in Poker because there are none such, but instead you work on a deep beyond deep theory behind each of these actions. Your learning is mostly about general sense of the game.

Really, what could you possibly memorize, say, about Photon Cycles (here is a video from one of the tournaments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtcU5t84sH0)? Every game is completely fresh and new, there are no "builds", "openings" and such - and, yet, there is a lot to master, tricks to polish, situations to train to get out of, and so on. I'm looking for something similar, although, maybe, not THAT simplistic.

[Garrr]

Super Smash Bros Melee. It's a steep learning curve for some of the technical skills but anyone can master them. The rules are super simple, knock your opponent out of bounds. But the mind games combined with technical skill really makes the game a steep learning curve. And it's more relevant than most people think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38EXis5cWJU

[Deleted]

FPS have never been my cup of tea. First of all, I'm just terribly bad at them. Then, the whole war theme is also not my first choice. Finally, I'd like something more... arcade-like? Not a simulation of a real battlefield, but something more simple.

Well quake is more "arcade-like" with a really high skill ceiling

divekick is probably the most simple "competitive game" though

[Deleted]

Natural Selection 2

Get resources, research tech, kill enemy base.

Insanely steep learning curve though.

[Itisamuh]

I would recommend that an FPS would fit your description, as they are simple yet very skill dependent. Except it seems you want an RTS/MOBA game more than anything else, and want to not rely on teammates. I can honestly not think of too many solo competitive games that are less complicated than the MOBA games you listed.

[Fencers]

Well, Chess.

That is what you are looking for, OP.

[kenshinag]

Honestly, sounds like the only thing you left out was fighting games. There are a lot of fighting games with basic directional controls and 6 different buttons for attacks. There's still a lot of competition and "scene" if you look into it like EVO. Street Fighter 4 and Guilty Gear / BlazBlue are examples of games that have really solid followings. Each character plays differently, feels differently because of different "weight" if I can even describe it that way, and are balanced around their differences.

[Twoflower]

Chess sounds exactly like the game you want. But it's boring, so I give you this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

Best game ever. Infinitly complex, but the rules are explained in 5 minutes.

[Achaman]

eve online :/

[Verdugo]

FPS have never been my cup of tea. First of all, I'm just terribly bad at them. Then, the whole war theme is also not my first choice. Finally, I'd like something more... arcade-like? Not a simulation of a real battlefield, but something more simple.

Battlefield is far from simulation, its as arcady as it gets.

[SlimX]

Street Fighter?

Was thinking the same thing

[May90]

Thanks guys for suggestions. I'll try to answer to everyone.

Fighting games are a little bit not to my taste. I remember playing Mortal Combat III for some time when I was a kid, but then somehow I stopped.

In Chess and Go, competition is too tough, and even to get into top 1% you have to devote life to these games. Also, one of the reasons I quit Chess when nearly got Masters was insane repetitiveness of it. When you play the same opening for years and see the same positions with slight variations, it gets really boring. In card games there is at least some variety due to various decks and draws, while in Chess it's the same old e4-c5-Nf3-e6-d4-cxd4-Nxd4-Nc6-Nc3-a6-[10 more moves] over and over and over and over and over....

FPS - hard to say why, I just don't like them. And my aiming is so terrible. I could play Doom 1/2 more or less well thanks to targeting assist there and, well, 2D targeting which is way easier. But, say, in Quake I've always been awful and never managed to beat even the strongest AI in 1v1. Same with BF: I played BF2 multiplayer for some time and always caused rage from my teammates.

EVE Online... I guess it's not exactly a competitive game. Yes, you play against other players. But it's not like, say, Chess where I can just hop into a game and win purely by my skill. In EVE, you have to spend a lot of time to build your empire, and even then you can just be crushed by someone and have to start from scratch.
It's a good game, I don't argue, just... Not what I'm looking for.

---

I came to conclusion that Hearthstone (or MTG, if Hearthstone proves to be not my cup of tea) is what I should pick. I think I will have a chance to play it on a high level since the game is not even out yet, so there is not so much of theory developed, and I will be able to learn it as it is developed.
Hope the open beta will start soon...

Also, as a "safe haven", I have League of Legends which I still play periodically. I like it, but its team component a little bit repels me. I will still pick it if nothing else is found though.

[Hraklea]

...competition is too tough, and even to get into top 1% you have to devote life to these games. [...] I came to conclusion that Hearthstone (or MTG, if Hearthstone proves to be not my cup of tea) is what I should pick.

You're being delusional if you think you get to the top 1% of MtG without spending a huge amount of time (and money, as MtG is ridiculously expensive).

Hopefully, Hearthstone will work for you.

[Twoflower]

In Chess and Go, competition is too tough, and even to get into top 1% you have to devote life to these games. Also, one of the reasons I quit Chess when nearly got Masters was insane repetitiveness of it. When you play the same opening for years and see the same positions with slight variations, it gets really boring. In card games there is at least some variety due to various decks and draws, while in Chess it's the same old e4-c5-Nf3-e6-d4-cxd4-Nxd4-Nc6-Nc3-a6-[10 more moves] over and over and over and over and over....

Go has a huge advantage over chess that after 20 moves, no game is the same. There are so many variations that it's almost impossible unless you want to replay a game.

But yes, the competition is huge. There are like 50 million players worldwide ( in go ). But hey, that's where the glory comes from ^^ And the game is fun even if you are not in the top 1%.

Btw, i think getting into top 1% is too much work in almost any game. Good luck getting into the top 1% in heartstone, specially when the game goes public. You'll have to invest 1000's of $ to get all the cards to get into the top 1%, and then you still have to be really good and really lucky.

[Deleted]

Btw, i think getting into top 1% is too much work in almost any game. Good luck getting into the top 1% in heartstone, specially when the game goes public. You'll have to invest 1000's of $ to get all the cards to get into the top 1%, and then you still have to be really good and really lucky.

1000's of $? That's just completly wrong. With the crafting system you will need at max. 200$ and some games to play to get them all. I bought 2x 40 packs and I think I'm missing now less then 30 cards with about 120 hours played. (Edit: Just counted, it's 14 Legendarys and 7 epics which makes it 28 cars since you can have 2 epics each.)

@OP: Try Hearthstone. It's really good and open beta starts next month.

[Twoflower]

1000's of $? That's just completly wrong. With the crafting system you will need at max. 200$ and some games to play to get them all. I bought 2x 40 packs and I think I'm missing now less then 30 cards with about 120 hours played. (Edit: Just counted, it's 14 Legendarys and 7 epics which makes it 28 cars since you can have 2 epics each.)

@OP: Try Hearthstone. It's really good and open beta starts next month.

Well, ok, maybe not 1000's. But 100's. Which is way more than you spend on one normal game you buy in a box in the store. And then there is the other point that it's a blizzard game and there will be millions of players, specially since it's F2P, and getting into the top 1% is just crazy difficult.

[Libram]

The Jedi assault mode in Star Wards Battlefront II was pretty simple to learn, but had tons of tricks and strategies that can take a lot of time to learn.

[Deleted]

Well, ok, maybe not 1000's. But 100's. Which is way more than you spend on one normal game you buy in a box in the store. And then there is the other point that it's a blizzard game and there will be millions of players, specially since it's F2P, and getting into the top 1% is just crazy difficult.

Don't tell me that people spend less on things like LoL.
And you will be able to get all the cards you need without paying anything. Especially if you have only 1-2 hours a day. The most gold you make will come from dailys and if you just complete them you will get enough gold to buy arena entries which, if you play well enough, will net enough to buy more arena entries + the card packs you get from arena.

Obviously it will be hard to get into the 1% top. But it's easier to do that in a game like Hearthstone then in a lot of other games if you have limited time like the OP said.

[May90]

You're being delusional if you think you get to the top 1% of MtG without spending a huge amount of time (and money, as MtG is ridiculously expensive).

Hopefully, Hearthstone will work for you.

MtG, I believe, has also a very tough competition since it's been out for, what, 20 years and there are thousands of veterans who have been played since the launch? The difference here is that Hearthstone has a small player base as of now, so it's a good time to hop in, and then, at least, I will grow up together with other players. In Chess, for example, some people back in 1900 knew more about the game than I knew at my career peak, so there is also a big time gap to close, which itself would take 20 years of hard work. Just look at biographies of modern Chess champions: they all started serious training at 5-6 years and been learning 5-10 hours every day for over a dozen years. There is just no way I will ever enter top 1%, unless I completely give up all my life and start learning Chess only for a decade. And, still, if I don't have a special talent for the game, I probably will never make Grandmasters. There are a lot of players who have been playing their entire life, and they are still in Masters, which is good, but nothing even close to top level players.

As Hearthstone grows old, the gap between new and old players will certainly grow, and after 3-4 years it will be very hard for new players to quickly reach high level. But, right at the game launch, all players are pretty much equal, so you get a future "veteran" status immediately, and you have a chance to get into top players quickly and then hold your ground. It's easier than starting as a complete noob and competing against 1000s of experienced masters.

This can be observed very well in Starcraft. Today Silver players play almost like Diamond players in SC2 Beta time. Because the knowledge has been accumulated and even new players know the best builds, micro and macro mechanics, etc., while when the game was only launching, people experienced everything the first time and had to completely improvise.

Btw, i think getting into top 1% is too much work in almost any game. Good luck getting into the top 1% in heartstone, specially when the game goes public. You'll have to invest 1000's of $ to get all the cards to get into the top 1%, and then you still have to be really good and really lucky.

Not necessarily. Depends on the player base, how long the game has existed, how large is the gap between new players and veterans, and so on. Try to get into Chess Masters (I think, exactly about top 1%) - and you will have to work 5 years hard, participating in all tournaments you can find, off-line and on-line, and still the result is not guaranteed. But top 1% of some custom map in SC2 - easily. According to stats, I may be in the top 10 players in one of the most popular SC2 maps, Micro Arena EU - and I've been playing it for only a few months, 4-5 games every day. But make this map a separate game, spend millions dollars to advertise it, make millions players buy it - and in a few years you will have no chance to get into top, unless you have a real talent and train many hours every day for years.

Typically where the skill lies in M:TG is in your ability to construct decks, see card synergies, strengths/weaknesses, and to metagame. If you don't enjoy and study those elements and just focus on the "skill" of playing the game itself, you're probably missing the point. [/FONT]

I've never played MtG itself, but played a few similar games. The way I see it, the skill consists of two parts: constructing decks (not just physically constructing it, but, as you mentioned, knowing synergies, weaknesses, etc.) and the game itself. The latter is important. Just like in chess, on high level you need to predict from your opponents moves what deck could he have, what he is planning. On higher level, you ask yourself what your opponent thinks you think about his deck. And it may go on and go on.
Certainly, if you are really unlucky with draws and your opponent is really lucky, you will win. But it's rounds where luck is not on either side that decide who actually plays better (and who wins the tournament/duel).
So, I guess, you have to train both these things. If you have a great deck but don't think what your opponent might be doing, you may lose to a sudden move you hadn't expected. If you have incredible in-game skill but your deck sucks, you lose. But if you are good at both, your play will be very solid, and you will be able to play against the luck factor when needed.

Somehow top players win in Poker even when their draws suck 10 times a row. They know how to play against the odds. Thinking that draw decides who wins in Poker would be... reckless.

P.S. If spending $1000 would make me top Hearthstone player in the world, I would agree on that. And for being top player in Chess, I would probably sell my house...

[May90]

Poker is a significantly different game from M:TG though. The similarities largely stop at "they're both played with cards". [/FONT]

No, I just meant that luck, while can decide some games, overall isn't that significant in most games. Surely, in Chess you may roll white or black and rolling black decreases your chances to win, but you still need to play well, otherwise this luck won't help you much. Similar in card games: the best players know how to play against the odds and how to win even if your draw is very unlucky, while worse players keep losing and complaining about RNG...