Here I try to discuss what changes we want in SC2, and will it be helpful.
1. Custom games. I'm not sure about this. I still think Blizzard implemented this in much better way. If you look at old custom games, very long list of games on same 3-4 maps. And it was hard to join the game, hosts always used to kick you out. I had mixed feelings about old custom games, and never liked them. Although I didn't play SC2 custom games much, it seems more convenient than old one. They just put the long list of games in one button (popular map being higher in the list) and they do search for you.
2. Chat channels. Dota 2 channels are empty, WC3 channels were empty. I don't use chatchannels too. I'm maybe an unsocial guy, but I don't think chats are that important for a successful game. Afterall we have TL.net, Skype and IRC.
3. Better UI. SC2 UI definitely needs to be reworked. Too many buttons and menus. But I don't think I'll start playing SC2 again even if they made the perfect UI.
4. LAN. I'm not sure how its even relevant in making sc2 more appealing. And I don't see tournaments suffering from it either.
5. Gameplay. Gameplay of SC2 sucks, its boring and repetitive. - Players are forced to play same strategy over and over again. TvT being only exception. - Games are too fast, player needs to do too much stuff, and a single misclick can cost the game. - You can't come up with a new strategy and implement it. I've tried ghost nukes, nydusing, reapers, doom drops, multipronged attacks and many more. Opponent just a-moves me with deathball and wins. All I've said above makes the game too stressful, frustrating and unfun. If Blizzard fixes even half above said problems I see myself coming back to SC2. EDIT: A SHORT REMARK.
it seems some people don't understand the point i'm trying to make.
I'll make it simpler for you. No matter what new strategy you find (be it ghost nuke, nydus worm, mid-late game reaper harass, multipron attacks or doom drops) its far mo easier to just clump up everything you have and a-move to win. I'm not saying new strategies are impossible, but they are really hard to execute. Therefore basically all games in Platinum, Diamond, and Low masters are about getting deathball and winning.
You see, I am not discussing certain strategies here. I'm describing overall feelings with the game. Why would I care what strategies pro players are using? I'm talking about my experience in ladder. SC2 is suffering from low interest from casuals, thats because gameplay sucks. To some extent its boring, repetitive and difficult. I'm not advising to completely slow it down and make like a chess. If Blizzard made it a little more forgiving, it wouldn't hurt anybody. How can you be sure that today's game speed is the optimal, maybe its a little to fast or a little to slow?
TL DR, A simple conclusion: only way to revive SC2 for casuals is to improve its gameplay. I'm sure competitive SC2 will see huge benefits from it.
I kinda disagree with gameplay is boring and repetitive. The general game plan for average ladder players are usually the same is purely because it is most effective for them. However at pro level, there are different mid game, such as Zerg going infestor ling into deathball would have different ways to get to the deathball stage. Some rush broodlords, skipping upgrades etc some get more infestors before going to hive.
You can't really complain the game being too fast, it's a skill that we should develope and improve upon. The battle however, really does last too short imo.
You can always come up with new strategies, it's just you need to know how to transition out of it and how much damage you need to do to make your strategies do-able. Your "ghost nuke", "nydus" are the only 2 relatively new strategies. Ghost nuke rush is completely do-able.
Nydus had a few games where it succeed but only in certain situation would it work. It still works well against FFE toss for example. reaper works as a very good scouting opening. I don't know what do you mean by just "reaper". If you were massing reaper, you still could get to master+ level according to a guide in TL as long as you do it his way. It won't be as good as pro level, but it works.
doom drops, multi pronged attacks and many more are obviously not new strategy, I don't know why it doesn't work for you but for example, doom dropping max roach against a mech terran works. multi pronged attacks certainly works as seen in almost every tvz games.
These are things that do more if you know what you are doing. If you multi prong attack and loses everything due to a storm and some cannons, then obviously you deserve to lose. If you multi prong attack when he pushes out and pulls him back and you save your units, then it worked for you and pulled you a bigger winning gap.
On October 28 2012 20:59 ETisME wrote: I kinda disagree with gameplay is boring and repetitive. The general game plan for average ladder players are usually the same is purely because it is most effective for them. However at pro level, there are different mid game, such as Zerg going infestor ling into deathball would have different ways to get to the deathball stage. Some rush broodlords, skipping upgrades etc some get more infestors before going to hive.
You can't really complain the game being too fast, it's a skill that we should develope and improve upon. The battle however, really does last too short imo.
You can always come up with new strategies, it's just you need to know how to transition out of it and how much damage you need to do to make your strategies do-able. Your "ghost nuke", "nydus" are the only 2 relatively new strategies. Ghost nuke rush is completely do-able. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9JS2iqTIk Nydus had a few games where it succeed but only in certain situation would it work. It still works well against FFE toss for example. reaper works as a very good scouting opening. I don't know what do you mean by just "reaper". If you were massing reaper, you still could get to master+ level according to a guide in TL as long as you do it his way. It won't be as good as pro level, but it works.
doom drops, multi pronged attacks and many more are obviously not new strategy, I don't know why it doesn't work for you but for example, doom dropping max roach against a mech terran works. multi pronged attacks certainly works as seen in almost every tvz games.
These are things that do more if you know what you are doing. If you multi prong attack and loses everything due to a storm and some cannons, then obviously you deserve to lose. If you multi prong attack when he pushes out and pulls him back and you save your units, then it worked for you and pulled you a bigger winning gap.
it seems you don't understand the point i'm trying to make.
I'll make it simpler for you. No matter what new strategy you find (be it ghost nuke, nydus worm, mid-late game reaper harass, multipron attacks or doom drops) its far mo easier to just clump up everything you have and a-move to win. I'm not saying new strategies are impossible, but they are really hard to execute. Therefore basically all games in Platinum, Diamond, and Low masters are about getting deathball and winning.
You see, I am not discussing certain strategies here. I'm describing overall feelings with the game. Why would I care what strategies pro players are using? I'm talking about my experience in ladder. SC2 is suffering from low interest from casuals, thats because gameplay sucks. To some extent its boring, repetitive and difficult. I'm not advising to completely slow it down and make like a chess. If Blizzard made it a little more forgiving, it wouldn't hurt anybody. How can you be sure that today's game speed is the optimal, maybe its a little to fast or a little to slow?
I tend to agree with the strategies being very "set". There are some very impressive play at high levels tho, and you can still win a lot of ladder games with different stuff at my skill lever (plat-dia).
I feel that a lot of the stuff lies in the relative strenghts of the races at relative times:
T bio >> P gateway P colo >> T bio so vikings are forced P storm = T bio with ghost However with the warp gate mechanic + ff and little defenders advantage T is kinda forced into openings.
Z lowtech (roach) >> P gateway P imortal push >>> Z lowtech P robo = Z lair Z Hive (bl/infestor) >>>> P everything
T bio =< Z lowtech T bio < Z lair T bio << Z bl/infestor T mech =< Z bl/infestor, mainly because vikings are bad against fungal.
It just feels that gateway units are worse than they could be because of warpgate mechanic and ff, so P is very much forced into robo or to gamle on storm. The same way Z needs infestor, specially vs P because of ff mainly. At the same time Z hardcounters t bio with fungal. And T can't techswitch into mech because production and upgrades are so far apart.
It just feels like sc2 is a lot more about hard counters than bw. Also P and Z have units that are so strong that the rest of their armies have to be a lot worse to keep a balance.
On October 28 2012 21:25 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: I tend to agree with the strategies being very "set". There are some very impressive play at high levels tho, and you can still win a lot of ladder games with different stuff at my skill lever (plat-dia). + Show Spoiler +
I feel that a lot of the stuff lies in the relative strenghts of the races at relative times:
T bio >> P gateway P colo >> T bio so vikings are forced P storm = T bio with ghost However with the warp gate mechanic + ff and little defenders advantage T is kinda forced into openings.
Z lowtech (roach) >> P gateway P imortal push >>> Z lowtech P robo = Z lair Z Hive (bl/infestor) >>>> P everything
T bio =< Z lowtech T bio < Z lair T bio << Z bl/infestor T mech =< Z bl/infestor, mainly because vikings are bad against fungal.
It just feels that gateway units are worse than they could be because of warpgate mechanic and ff, so P is very much forced into robo or to gamle on storm. The same way Z needs infestor, specially vs P because of ff mainly. At the same time Z hardcounters t bio with fungal. And T can't techswitch into mech because production and upgrades are so far apart.
It just feels like sc2 is a lot more about hard counters than bw. Also P and Z have units that are so strong that the rest of their armies have to be a lot worse to keep a balance.
While I agree that new strats are possible, but going colossi/gateway is always safer than some sort of phoenix into dt strategy. There are no incentives using other strategies. It seems like Blizzard is telling us "here are some strats you can use, but you really should use this one[colossi/gateway], it works all the time and the safest one".
On October 28 2012 21:25 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: I tend to agree with the strategies being very "set". There are some very impressive play at high levels tho, and you can still win a lot of ladder games with different stuff at my skill lever (plat-dia). + Show Spoiler +
I feel that a lot of the stuff lies in the relative strenghts of the races at relative times:
T bio >> P gateway P colo >> T bio so vikings are forced P storm = T bio with ghost However with the warp gate mechanic + ff and little defenders advantage T is kinda forced into openings.
Z lowtech (roach) >> P gateway P imortal push >>> Z lowtech P robo = Z lair Z Hive (bl/infestor) >>>> P everything
T bio =< Z lowtech T bio < Z lair T bio << Z bl/infestor T mech =< Z bl/infestor, mainly because vikings are bad against fungal.
It just feels that gateway units are worse than they could be because of warpgate mechanic and ff, so P is very much forced into robo or to gamle on storm. The same way Z needs infestor, specially vs P because of ff mainly. At the same time Z hardcounters t bio with fungal. And T can't techswitch into mech because production and upgrades are so far apart.
It just feels like sc2 is a lot more about hard counters than bw. Also P and Z have units that are so strong that the rest of their armies have to be a lot worse to keep a balance.
While I agree that new strats are possible, but going colossi/gateway is always safer than some sort of phoenix into dt strategy. There are no incentives using other strategies. It seems like Blizzard is telling us "here are some strats you can use, but you really should use this one[colossi/gateway], it works all the time and the safest one".
But by definition you will win 50% of the time doing the standard strat assuming all other things are equal and the game is balanced. Can you win 50% of games doing unusual stuff?
On October 28 2012 21:25 ToKoreaWithLove wrote: I tend to agree with the strategies being very "set". There are some very impressive play at high levels tho, and you can still win a lot of ladder games with different stuff at my skill lever (plat-dia). + Show Spoiler +
I feel that a lot of the stuff lies in the relative strenghts of the races at relative times:
T bio >> P gateway P colo >> T bio so vikings are forced P storm = T bio with ghost However with the warp gate mechanic + ff and little defenders advantage T is kinda forced into openings.
Z lowtech (roach) >> P gateway P imortal push >>> Z lowtech P robo = Z lair Z Hive (bl/infestor) >>>> P everything
T bio =< Z lowtech T bio < Z lair T bio << Z bl/infestor T mech =< Z bl/infestor, mainly because vikings are bad against fungal.
It just feels that gateway units are worse than they could be because of warpgate mechanic and ff, so P is very much forced into robo or to gamle on storm. The same way Z needs infestor, specially vs P because of ff mainly. At the same time Z hardcounters t bio with fungal. And T can't techswitch into mech because production and upgrades are so far apart.
It just feels like sc2 is a lot more about hard counters than bw. Also P and Z have units that are so strong that the rest of their armies have to be a lot worse to keep a balance.
While I agree that new strats are possible, but going colossi/gateway is always safer than some sort of phoenix into dt strategy. There are no incentives using other strategies. It seems like Blizzard is telling us "here are some strats you can use, but you really should use this one[colossi/gateway], it works all the time and the safest one".
But by definition you will win 50% of the time doing the standard strat assuming all other things are equal and the game is balanced. Can you win 50% of games doing unusual stuff?
Huh by definition you don't necessarily win 50% of the time by doing the "standard strat" even ceteris paribus - unless by that you mean everyone else is doing standard strats every game :p
It's hard to post here without being called a whiner because some people are extremely enthusiastic about the game they love, and a bunch of threads are attempts to be constructive, yet they still get mocked for not accepting SC2 as it is. "Enjoy it because I do." However it seems to me like people are right when they say that SC2 is stagnating, though.
The Game: - No LAN so there's latency even when playing locally. - The "standard" for all MUs is getting dated and games are rarely interesting, even games played in tournament finals are stuff that I feel like I have seen before. - The metagame shifts are now quite mild, and tend to lead to more of the same. There are only so many ways in which units can interact and they don't tend to be particularly interesting. - As TT1 said in his thread commenting on Destiny's comment, HotS is boring - to play, and to watch. It feels like Blizzard was afraid to make the game imbalanced during its development, so every move was calculated around balance, even though it really was the time to try crazy stuff. In their defense, they managed to make the Oracle a bit less boring (at least it seems to me). - Dull unit design based around user-friendly control and balance rather than fun.
The Game's Support: - No LAN: We look like idiots in front of Halo players of all people. FFS. - Again like TT1 said, players don't play the game because the only "good" way to play is ladder. They get ladder anxiety, and drift away from the scene. - WEAK social tools. TL builds a better community than Blizzard's multi-billion corp.
The Competitive Scene - No LAN: Because I have to mention it 3 times - A lack of truly recognizable names of competitors makes it hard for new fans to get attached to players. Who's got a truly huge following in MLG's Fall Championship? Taeja's great, Naniwa has been pretty successful, but none of them run the show. Then there's Flash (I'm actually pretty excited for that if I'm honest! ) - but he hasn't made his name in SC2 yet, so he's not really attracting new folks to SC2. [Nothing can be done about that.]
The Design Team - Didn't include LAN - Browder is like 80 - No business sense
On October 28 2012 20:05 bokeevboke wrote: 5. Gameplay. Gameplay of SC2 sucks, its boring and repetitive. - Players are forced to play same strategy over and over again. TvT being only exception. - Games are too fast, player needs to do too much stuff, and a single misclick can cost the game. - You can't come up with a new strategy and implement it. I've tried ghost nukes, nydusing, reapers, doom drops, multipronged attacks and many more. Opponent just a-moves me with deathball and wins.
None of this is valid.
Noone's forcing you into 1 build. There's plenty of variation in styles and map specific builds.
Whining that the game is too fast is just ridiculous. You can compete at a very high level with about 80 apm, which is hardly demanding unless you're geriatric.
Games are full of mistakes on both sides, a single misclick rarely decides it unless you suck at analysing replays.
You can do plenty of interesting strats if you've got the mechanics to back it up. Of course all the gimmicky stuff will fail to simple macro and a-move if you suck at the game. Effort killed Flash with a nydus in a game a week or so ago. Nukes are viable and fun. Doom drops are effective on certain maps and against certain styles (great for Zvs mech, or TvT). Saying that multipronged attacks aren't viable is the thing that convinces me you've got not clue how to play. It's not an easy game, it takes practice and complaining that anything unusual you try doesn't work says far more about your gameplay than SC2's.
The other changes you're asking for outside of 'gameplay' are legit and have been asked for since release.
On October 28 2012 20:05 bokeevboke wrote: 5. Gameplay. Gameplay of SC2 sucks, its boring and repetitive. - Players are forced to play same strategy over and over again. TvT being only exception. - Games are too fast, player needs to do too much stuff, and a single misclick can cost the game. - You can't come up with a new strategy and implement it. I've tried ghost nukes, nydusing, reapers, doom drops, multipronged attacks and many more. Opponent just a-moves me with deathball and wins.
None of this is valid.
Noone's forcing you into 1 build. There's plenty of variation in styles and map specific builds.
Whining that the game is too fast is just ridiculous. You can compete at a very high level with about 80 apm, which is hardly demanding unless you're geriatric.
Games are full of mistakes on both sides, a single misclick rarely decides it unless you suck at analysing replays.
You can do plenty of interesting strats if you've got the mechanics to back it up. Of course all the gimmicky stuff will fail to simple macro and a-move if you suck at the game. Effort killed Flash with a nydus in a game a week or so ago. Nukes are viable and fun. Doom drops are effective on certain maps and against certain styles (great for Zvs mech, or TvT). Saying that multipronged attacks aren't viable is the thing that convinces me you've got not clue how to play. It's not an easy game, it takes practice and complaining that anything unusual you try doesn't work says far more about your gameplay than SC2's.
The other changes you're asking for outside of 'gameplay' are legit and have been asked for since release.
I already answered this.
it seems you don't understand the point i'm trying to make.
I'll make it simpler for you. No matter what new strategy you find (be it ghost nuke, nydus worm, mid-late game reaper harass, multipron attacks or doom drops) its far mo easier to just clump up everything you have and a-move to win. I'm not saying new strategies are impossible, but they are really hard to execute. Therefore basically all games in Platinum, Diamond, and Low masters are about getting deathball and winning.
You see, I am not discussing certain strategies here. I'm describing overall feelings with the game. Why would I care what strategies pro players are using? I'm talking about my experience in ladder. SC2 is suffering from low interest from casuals, thats because gameplay sucks. To some extent its boring, repetitive and difficult. I'm not advising to completely slow it down and make like a chess. If Blizzard made it a little more forgiving, it wouldn't hurt anybody. How can you be sure that today's game speed is the optimal, maybe its a little to fast or a little to slow?
You are underestimating the feature above. Probably the only reason 8 of my friends had broodwar installed on their computers, was because of shared replay viewing.
I'd show them replays, bragging and satisfying my ego, and it'd spawn 3v3-hunters or UMS-sessions. Then they'd perhaps play some 1v1s and show me the replays when they'd done some slick move and were in need of some bragging of their own.
So finally a forum where lower league players can offer their advice . I'm platinum.
I think because SC2 is such a fast-paced game, you have to build things in a precise order as efficiently as you can, and ensure you have the proper hard-counters to certain attacks when they get there. This turns SC2 from a fun game to a chore, where you have to determine exact timings - counting gas geysers, how close a building is to being completed, knowing that by 10 minutes you have to prepared for X rush. Its not fun when you have to memorize these things and treat it like a job.
Watching my brother (Terran) play in bronze, I saw that he was thinking too much about strategy without having good enough mechanics to back it up...so he almost always got killed by a Protoss with a stronger economy and a ton of units. He was getting better (faster), but his opponents were a lot better as he started getting to mid-bronze, and then he just started getting crushed with overwhelming numbers because his opponents had a better, faster build. Basically he had to be faster in order to keep up with them (I usually watch over him play).
But instead he stopped playing...he just wasn't making decisions fast enough. The stress of this, combined with a lot of ladder anxiety that I noticed led to him quitting the game. It doesn't matter what fancy unique strategies might exist out there, like the OP noted, he just couldn't execute any of the strategies well, because of his slow APM.
I think he could have overcome that hump, but then he would have been in my position. Does he have the time to memorize timings, build orders, to master micro...and the patience to fight with virtually the same unit composition in every game? The second hurdle seems a lot harder to cross. I think either you have a passion for the game or you don't...and if you don't, you just have to move on to other games.
Edit: Also glad to see more people echo the sentiment that gameplay is all that really matters. Everything else is secondary. LoL is popular because of gameplay.
it's more like you don't understand the gameplay of SC2.
Deathball battle is a lot aboutnot clumping up. It's more about positioning and how to get a better engagement off either by a bigger arc of fire, emp, storm etc. How to get the better position becomes the awesome late game deathball "dance" that we have. TvT nuke forces tank unsiege; multiple warp prism harass etc
New strategies are not any harder to execute than old strategies. I completely don't understand your mindset. Saying for example, a 2 base mass banshee styles will not be anywhere more difficult to execute as a 7 gate +1 blink stalkers. It takes equal skill for an aggressor to attack as it is for the defender to defend. Aggressor gains the advantage of choosing what to do on which map and what can be abused Defender has the defender advantage such as high ground etc
There is a reason for doing the same build, builds that have been proven to be extremely efficient and has a clear set of game plan laid out.
Starcraft 2 is a strategy game that challenges the player's intelligence, on the spot decision making, emotion control, mechanics, not a "well you did something challenging, so yea you should win" game.
It appears to me that your general game understanding is too low to understand.
The real fun of starcraft 2 is the battling of two players' ability to out-smart the other and gaining every possible advantages you can to win. If you lose to a deathball, then obviously he had a better deathball/macro better/micro deathball better. If you did an innovative mid-late game reaper harass and lost to a deathball, it just means your investment did not pay off and he played his "defense and macro hard" style better than your "cool mid game build". If you did triple pronged drops, you are forcing him to split his army to defend accordingly, put him in defensive posture, challenge his macro and mechanics with yours. If you lost, then obviously he played better.
Sure if you just want to enjoy your own style and fun, you can just play and ignore the win/loss. if you want to get better with the innovative build, you can just keep playing and reviewing and change up some gas timing for example.
why should a game be forgiving when the game is about one trying to gain as much advantages as possible to win?
you guys are going with the old undeniable superstitious opinion on "HOW SC2 SHOULD BE". Everyone is so obsessed and partly even proud that THEIR game is so hard and they have to work their asses off TO PROVE everyone that they are doing something great here. Except that: - There is nobody seeing that. - And barely anybody plays the game. But that doesn't matter. Because still our game is the hardest one and not for pussies. ...
Dudes, stop it omg, its a game, ITS A FUCKING GAME, it needs to be fun so that people enjoy it. SC2 isn't some sort of difficult hobby. Get over it guys.
@Djzapz LAN was mentioned three times, but I absolutely agree as it effects latency. Maybe I'm just picky, but I really don't find the game enjoyable right from the outset simply because of how sluggish it feels. (Nevermind the lack of move shot micro.) I actually don't know why this bugs me so much because I'm not even good. But as soon as I start playing on LAN latency I feel like I've been freed up to go as fast as I want.
But gameplay could really change for the better with quicker attack-retreat micro.
EPT
) - but he hasn't made his name in SC2 yet, so he's not really attracting new folks to SC2. [Nothing can be done about that.]![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/14dg4jm.jpg)
