EPT
Let it Burn
| Blogs > Barrin |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
Yeah. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
Also, I agree with your assessment. I still can't help but wonder, though, when the competition your post mentions is going to come rolling along. As it stands, we may be on a Titanic without lifeboats. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
| ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
forSeohyun
504 Posts
Blizzard needs not more love, but tougher love. There needs to be challenges which are outside their comfort zone and which challenges their hegemony. Otherwise it will be like the tree, cuddled to death. | ||
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
Also playing dota 2 or sc2 doesn't make you suddenly smart or w/e this "intelligence" you refer to means. let me be clear, these are the same retards in your game of sc2, dota, lol, go, chess w/e, thinking the gaming population splits into games according to their "intelligence" tier is retarded. | ||
|
qtiehunter
1088 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
So dissapointed with SC2. My only concern is that the post mortem will be that the game was too hardcore, and completely miss the fact that people like to play games that are fun. SC2 is dying not because people don't care about e-sports or it wasn't casual friendly enough, SC2 is dying because its a fucking boring 1-dimensional game with a terrible online system. BW was fun and that's what led to its huge popularity, its as simple as that. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
On October 31 2012 10:32 Al Bundy wrote: You know there's something wrong when you see millions of people buying "games" such as FIFA 13 and Call of Duty (70€ mind you). Activision-Blizzard is all about the money. The question is: how's it going to end? Somehow, I think that if SC2 did crash and burn, the only things publishers would make of it would be "RTS is dead" or "don't make hard games". | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On October 31 2012 10:32 Al Bundy wrote: You know there's something wrong when you see millions of people buying "games" such as FIFA 13 and Call of Duty (70€ mind you). Activision-Blizzard is all about the money. The question is: how's it going to end? I suppose the only way that this will end is when the overall populous of gamers realize that they are being robbed blind for either minimal, or sub-par content (with these full games only consisting of essentially DLC or ancillary material or dressed up with a fresh coat of paint), especially when you are paying in upwards of $50 (and now nearing an average of $60) for it. It seems to me that gamers need to voice their opinions with their wallets... If you don't like the game, or feel insulted at what they are trying to pass off as a full or complete product, refuse to buy or play it. I know, its not exactly that simple but...this issue goes way beyond some of the things discussed here and for brevities sake, I think I will end it here for myself. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
 | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + In all seriousness I'm glad that DOTA 2 got added to TL cause I think Blizzard is beyond redemption now.. | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
Worker wandering is back after he created a trigger to make the workers stupid again. Units also space out in a nifty way when moving from point A to B. At the same time, Dustin Browder very recently said they were testing anti deathball mechanics in house for HotS, but also made some really stupid remarks about it supposedly being negated because progamers supposedly only a-move their troops incrementally in short distances (?!). While reassuring the plebeians on the battle.net forums that Blizzard were "looking into it", he managed to profess his surprise at there not existing a version of Brood War in the Starcraft 2 engine. That made my faith in them actually looking into it on a worthwhile level fall to zero. The way MavericK has tinkered with the attack animations, acceleration and movement of air units in his SC2BW mod also shows, in hindsight, how Blizzard should have gone about in designing air units in WoL. I promised in MavercK's thread that I'd make a video showcasing the incredible level of maneuverability that can be achieved through SC2's engine, contrasting it to the fucking joke ass travesty unit designs Blizzard are putting out. I've been lazy, but I'm gonna make that vid. SC2BW moving shot doesn't work exactly as Broodwar, but it nonetheless allows for some really cool moves whose only reason for not being prevalent in the game was Blizzard's total lack of understanding and competence when setting out to make WoL. Controlling the air units in that mod seriously infuriated me. Because it only served to remind me what SC2 could have been if it were not for Blizzard's incompetence. What could have been if only 1 member of their team had actually ever played brood war outside of the campaign; or even only had an eye for the smaller details. If they through hard work could have made air units control like MiGs and f22 raptors, why then do a half assed job and settle for oil tanker level maneuverability? They were simply incompetent and out of touch with their customers. Too bad nobody cares anymore. And honestly. I very much doubt the sc2 team have got any clout at blizzard. I suspect their team is kept really small. I have a feeling they're constantly and desperately whining at the company heads to be lent some battle.net devs who are assigned to D3, WoW, Project Titan and whatthefuckever. Meanwhile, they've got an ever growing to-do list, which ultimately has them cutting items from the list and prioritizing what's most important (which apparently was poorly implemented chat channels, followed by the arcade). I think the pro beta feedback forums were really telling when it came to what players really wanted to discuss, in contrast to what Blizzard were willing to do. Starts out fairly enthusiastic with lots of people making suggestions. People kept civil, and surprisingly didn't go off on too crazy tangents when submitting critique. But after a while it dawns on the progamers that Blizzard just want to tweak some damage points here, some psi limit points there, maybe some armor values here and range levels there. After discussing those for a while the progamers realize there's not much more definitives to be proclaimed about balance. Those will emerge and be addressed with time. Meanwhile the threads wanting to discuss deathballs or overarching game design stopped being made. The past two months 70% of the posts in that forum were made by avilo. With the energetic grubby and tireless morrow occasionally chiming in. I think most if not all of the input is coming from the public battle.net beta forums now. I'm honestly too tired to care. I can take a hint. I know they are not looking for the kind of feedback I'd be willing to give (if encoured); so I just don't post. | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
1) Armies are ridiculously hard to control. 2) I don't like having to click every damn production facility over and over again. 3) No auto-mining. I tried going back and playing some BW games, but I just found myself battling the interface (how many control groups do I need to move my army around... ? 1-a-2-a-3-a-4-a-5-a-6-a-7-a, but by this point my army needs to move in a different direction... All that I really remember of BW was UMS games and massing carriers in BGH games. I believe I tried to do some 1v1 but got bored with it very quickly. Anyways, this is just my personal experience, I totally missed out on the greatness of BW, but just wanted to give you the perspective of someone who is now 23 years old, who really loved BW as a game but moved on after a year or so. I'm 2 years in to SC2, with 1000s of games played, and I'm still hooked on the 1v1 experience. I regret the lack of features of BNET 2.0 and the stagnant custom game scene, but I love the pro scene and the matchmaking system. I'm hoping all the features BNET 2.0 should have had at release will be included by LotV, and we'll end up with a great all around game. Edit: It's funny to look at the responses of those with 2000+ posts and those with <1000, and see how they can almost all be categorized by doing so. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:40 JDub wrote: Just wanted to chime in and say that I <3 SC2. As someone who was very young when BW was released, I personally find SC2 to be much more fun and engaging than BW. My problems with BW: 1) Armies are ridiculously hard to control. 2) I don't like having to click every damn production facility over and over again. 3) No auto-mining. I tried going back and playing some BW games, but I just found myself battling the interface (how many control groups do I need to move my army around... ? 1-a-2-a-3-a-4-a-5-a-6-a-7-a, but by this point my army needs to move in a different direction... All that I really remember of BW was UMS games and massing carriers in BGH games. I believe I tried to do some 1v1 but got bored with it very quickly. Anyways, this is just my personal experience, I totally missed out on the greatness of BW, but just wanted to give you the perspective of someone who is now 23 years old, who really loved BW as a game but moved on after a year or so. I'm 2 years in to SC2, with 1000s of games played, and I'm still hooked on the 1v1 experience. I regret the lack of features of BNET 2.0 and the stagnant custom game scene, but I love the pro scene and the matchmaking system. I'm hoping all the features BNET 2.0 should have had at release will be included by LotV, and we'll end up with a great all around game. I don't think any BW enthusiast would contest the three points you brought up. They might have argued their implementation prior to SC2's release, but I'd wager nobody wants those changes reverted now. | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
edit:I'm high master in SC2 so its not like I don't play, but the BW interface is fine, and the SC2 interface is just more convenient, but not as fun to play with IMO. BW feels smooth. Also BW is dead but Fish server still gets about 20-25k people every night which is enough to instantly get games, so I play a bit on there :D.. | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:49 Megaliskuu wrote: I always lol when I hear "battling the interface", get more APM kids. edit:I'm high master in SC2 so its not like I don't play, but the BW interface is fine, and the SC2 interface is just more convenient, but not as fun to play with IMO. BW feels smooth. Well, I'm mid master in SC2 with about ~120 real APM (SC2 gears APM), and going back and trying to play BW, "battling the interface" is basically the only way I can sum up how it felt. Forget the 12 unit selection max and the fact that I'm trying to move my army using like 6-8 control groups, for me to get my units (read: dragoons) to go where I want them to, especially if I'm going up a ramp or something, I need to be spamming the move command over and over again or they'll just run around in seemingly random directions. Basically, I can see how the pro BW scene was captivating (although I missed out on it, and am not really interested in watching super old VODs with Korean commentary), but from a player perspective (and from someone in the top 5% of SC2 players no less), I think that SC2 is just a much more fun game to play. I don't know what exactly you mean when you say BW feels "smooth". @Lalush, I would be very interested in seeing the air unit video you plan on making. I don't really know what you are talking about with tweaking air unit stats to make them way cooler to control, so I think a video would be really awesome to explain what you mean. | ||
|
shizaep
Canada2920 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7a8Ze.jpg) Glad someone has finally realized that QQing on forum sites for ungodly amounts of time and sending Blizzards angry letters will not change anything. If SC2 is to see its' renaissance, there needs to be fundamental changes, which it will never see. Thus, the inevitable. | ||
|
metbull
United States404 Posts
Grow up Peter Pan. Blizzard makes games to make money; not to provide a game for a competitive gaming scene. That is only a blow off by product of their initial goal of getting as many people to buy the game and have fun with the casual game. SC2 was a game that took how many years to develop and release? So Blizzard pours millions of dollars into a game that you think should be purely for the .5% of all gamers who become pro in their chosen game (state is made up, but you get my meaning). Not likely. Selling licenses to tournaments to use their game isn't going to pay the bills or keep shareholders/stakeholders happy. | ||
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
I feel like I'm battling the interface with Battlenet latency. That's how I would say it feels smooth. Anything other than LAN latency feels extremely sluggish. That effects every move action in the game. And yeah no-one wants buggy dragoon ai (I actually don't think it's that bad.) But they might want hold-position dragoon micro. | ||
|
shizaep
Canada2920 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:57 JDub wrote: Well, I'm mid master in SC2 with about ~120 real APM (SC2 gears APM), and going back and trying to play BW, "battling the interface" is basically the only way I can sum up how it felt. Forget the 12 unit selection max and the fact that I'm trying to move my army using like 6-8 control groups, for me to get my units (read: dragoons) to go where I want them to, especially if I'm going up a ramp or something, I need to be spamming the move command over and over again or they'll just run around in seemingly random directions. Basically, I can see how the pro BW scene was captivating (although I missed out on it, and am not really interested in watching super old VODs with Korean commentary), but from a player perspective (and from someone in the top 5% of SC2 players no less), I think that SC2 is just a much more fun game to play. I don't know what exactly you mean when you say BW feels "smooth". @Lalush, I would be very interested in seeing the air unit video you plan on making. I don't really know what you are talking about with tweaking air unit stats to make them way cooler to control, so I think a video would be really awesome to explain what you mean. Also, as someone who started playing SC2 first, and then tried BW, I would say that everything felt rewarding and in a somewhat related way enjoyable except the army control. I think I got a decent hang of the macro pretty fast. I just used the screen hotkeys and clicked all my barracks. I'm not advocating for single building selection in any way, though. I just think that it wasn't too big of a deal. Controlling your army was a bitch and a half though. Really pissed me off. I think that we should look for WarCraft 3 for how army control should be done. It's different because you have WAY less units but for some reason the W3 army interface seemed the best too me. You could select 12 units at a time and there was all kinds of cute micro that you could do by clicking on the portraits. Usually, you would have your army split into 3 groups, and would be cycling them excessively during battles and using one to cast one spell, another to cast another spell and microing the third. It was never difficult to use, I was never fighting the interface. In fact, it made you learn to micro much faster. | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On October 31 2012 13:45 Falling wrote: @JDub I feel like I'm battling the interface with Battlenet latency. That's how I would say it feels smooth. Anything other than LAN latency feels extremely sluggish. That effects every move action in the game. And yeah no-one wants buggy dragoon ai (I actually don't think it's that bad.) But they might want hold-position dragoon micro. Ah, when it comes to latency, I completely agree. All it takes is loading up a Single Player vs. AI game in SC2 to feel the massive difference. It actually throws me off how fast my units respond to my clicks! | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Let the game die so the community can steal it from blizzard, or something like that. The other one would be the heads of Activision/Blizzard restructuring the teams in charge of sc2. But you'd think 2+ years of whining would have achieved that if it was ever to happen. | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
You're complaining about a lot of things, and a lot of them I agree with. But you talk about how casuals shouldn't get more development or catering (granted when it comes to balance they should have no say whatsoever), but...wasn't the custom map scene (the casual people) one of the primary things that allowed Broodwar to become what it was? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
On October 31 2012 15:02 Angel_ wrote: I'm going to ask a question based solely in ignorance. You're complaining about a lot of things, and a lot of them I agree with. But you talk about how casuals shouldn't get more development or catering (granted when it comes to balance they should have no say whatsoever), but...wasn't the custom map scene (the casual people) one of the primary things that allowed Broodwar to become what it was? Depends what you're talking about. When the cry goes out 'need to focus on casuals,' it could very well be talking about actual gameplay. In that case, screw that. We need the game to have more skill, not less. They can go play Angry Birds or Zynga games. But if what we mean by catering to casuals is better/ more accessible maps, well that helps everyone. I don't think anyone would be against that. In fact that probably should've been Blizzards major push to get casuals to stick around with SC2. Rather than trying to get everyone to 1v1 (hide ladder stats, don't have global rankings.) Battlenet 0.2 needs to be 2.0 to attract and keep casuals. Super competive people will around that if the game is good enough (I've learned more about computers, networking, port forwarding, and VPN trying to get BW to work on new computers than I have with anything else.) But good gameplay positively impacts the casual as well even if they can't make full use of it. If casuals can play with casuals in a fun, non-stressful environment, it doesn't really matter if there are some tricky moves (like moving shot and the Chinese triangle) that require high APM. So it really comes down to what we mean by what in the game is catering to casuals. Dumbing down gameplay isn't the right way. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:32 LaLuSh wrote: I like what MavercK is doing with his SC2BW mod at the moment though. Worker wandering is back after he created a trigger to make the workers stupid again. Units also space out in a nifty way when moving from point A to B. At the same time, Dustin Browder very recently said they were testing anti deathball mechanics in house for HotS, but also made some really stupid remarks about it supposedly being negated because progamers supposedly only a-move their troops incrementally in short distances (?!). While reassuring the plebeians on the battle.net forums that Blizzard were "looking into it", he managed to profess his surprise at there not existing a version of Brood War in the Starcraft 2 engine. That made my faith in them actually looking into it on a worthwhile level fall to zero. The way MavericK has tinkered with the attack animations, acceleration and movement of air units in his SC2BW mod also shows, in hindsight, how Blizzard should have gone about in designing air units in WoL. I promised in MavercK's thread that I'd make a video showcasing the incredible level of maneuverability that can be achieved through SC2's engine, contrasting it to the fucking joke ass travesty unit designs Blizzard are putting out. I've been lazy, but I'm gonna make that vid. SC2BW moving shot doesn't work exactly as Broodwar, but it nonetheless allows for some really cool moves whose only reason for not being prevalent in the game was Blizzard's total lack of understanding and competence when setting out to make WoL. Controlling the air units in that mod seriously infuriated me. Because it only served to remind me what SC2 could have been if it were not for Blizzard's incompetence. What could have been if only 1 member of their team had actually ever played brood war outside of the campaign; or even only had an eye for the smaller details. If they through hard work could have made air units control like MiGs and f22 raptors, why then do a half assed job and settle for oil tanker level maneuverability? They were simply incompetent and out of touch with their customers. Too bad nobody cares anymore. And honestly. I very much doubt the sc2 team have got any clout at blizzard. I suspect their team is kept really small. I have a feeling they're constantly and desperately whining at the company heads to be lent some battle.net devs who are assigned to D3, WoW, Project Titan and whatthefuckever. Meanwhile, they've got an ever growing to-do list, which ultimately has them cutting items from the list and prioritizing what's most important (which apparently was poorly implemented chat channels, followed by the arcade). I think the pro beta feedback forums were really telling when it came to what players really wanted to discuss, in contrast to what Blizzard were willing to do. Starts out fairly enthusiastic with lots of people making suggestions. People kept civil, and surprisingly didn't go off on too crazy tangents when submitting critique. But after a while it dawns on the progamers that Blizzard just want to tweak some damage points here, some psi limit points there, maybe some armor values here and range levels there. After discussing those for a while the progamers realize there's not much more definitives to be proclaimed about balance. Those will emerge and be addressed with time. Meanwhile the threads wanting to discuss deathballs or overarching game design stopped being made. The past two months 70% of the posts in that forum were made by avilo. With the energetic grubby and tireless morrow occasionally chiming in. I think most if not all of the input is coming from the public battle.net beta forums now. I'm honestly too tired to care. I can take a hint. I know they are not looking for the kind of feedback I'd be willing to give (if encoured); so I just don't post. But Lalush, Starcraft should be about strategy. Now foreigners, who mind you, who are much better at strategy than koreans, can win because they don't need to spend 16 hours a day in team houses LITERALLY fighting the AI. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:48 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think any BW enthusiast would contest the three points you brought up. They might have argued their implementation prior to SC2's release, but I'd wager nobody wants those changes reverted now. Actually I love manual mining and single building selection, feeling a direct influence in your macro makes a big difference in how you feel at the end of the game and also it adds the progression element. You can directly feel yourself getting better each day. Sure its annoying at the beginning, but its what makes you come back for more. I don't have a lot of time for games these days but I always come back to BW just so I can send some SCVs to mine and make units. The main thing about it is when you are a newbie, your thinking is like, "Dammit if I had MBS and Automine I would beat everyone because I'm so much smarter than everyone else, just everyone beats me coz they have better mechanics from playing more". In reality that's not the case and you start to realise the beauty of the BW mechanics the more you play and how it has no hinderance on strategy and gamesense whatsoever. And this is coming from someone who is pretty bad at the game. ^^ | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On October 31 2012 15:54 Falling wrote: Depends what you're talking about. When the cry goes out 'need to focus on casuals,' it could very well be talking about actual gameplay. In that case, screw that. We need the game to have more skill, not less. They can go play Angry Birds or Zynga games. But if what we mean by catering to casuals is better/ more accessible maps, well that helps everyone. I don't think anyone would be against that. In fact that probably should've been Blizzards major push to get casuals to stick around with SC2. Rather than trying to get everyone to 1v1 (hide ladder stats, don't have global rankings.) Battlenet 0.2 needs to be 2.0 to attract and keep casuals. Super competive people will around that if the game is good enough (I've learned more about computers, networking, port forwarding, and VPN trying to get BW to work on new computers than I have with anything else.) But good gameplay positively impacts the casual as well even if they can't make full use of it. If casuals can play with casuals in a fun, non-stressful environment, it doesn't really matter if there are some tricky moves (like moving shot and the Chinese triangle) that require high APM. So it really comes down to what we mean by what in the game is catering to casuals. Dumbing down gameplay isn't the right way. Catering to casuals through blizzard's perspective (imo).... Hey, we know that alot of ppl have hardcore jobs that require strenuous hours, which leave them only 1 hour to play each day to blow off steam etc. etc., so we made the map pool favour really wacky strategies and cheeses that casual players can pick up and win against other players from time to time, instead of racking their brain over long management games. I dunno though. If you make a game like Starcraft, it is not going to attract casuals at all to multiplayer. Alot of casual players just simply buy a game just because they want to play sentry scramble with some friends. Blizzard really didn't have to worry at all about not catering to casuals simply because they'll buy the game anyways. Personally, I feel that SC2 (and HotS) has more rules (rules, not restrictions) to it than BW, which makes it quite hard for a newer person to adapt to. I feel like the devs didn't realize what made gameplay in BW simple was also what made it complex. Small things like being able to take workers off of gas in BW made a big difference, but I feel that the devs just decided to put in 2 gases per expo in SC2 in order to "make it more complex". Or adding in Towers in order to promote having map vision, when good unit control can do the same thing (and is more fun/active). On October 31 2012 16:03 sluggaslamoo wrote: But Lalush, Starcraft should be about strategy. Now foreigners, who mind you, who are much better at strategy than koreans, can win because they don't need to spend 16 hours a day in team houses LITERALLY fighting the AI. Ofc it should. Everyone loves seeing foreigners do some flavour of the month strategy that abuses some patch imbalance. They are such clever players! | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On October 31 2012 16:24 Nazza wrote: Catering to casuals through blizzard's perspective (imo).... Hey, we know that alot of ppl have hardcore jobs that require strenuous hours, which leave them only 1 hour to play each day to blow off steam etc. etc., so we made the map pool favour really wacky strategies and cheeses that casual players can pick up and win against other players from time to time, instead of racking their brain over long management games. I dunno though. If you make a game like Starcraft, it is not going to attract casuals at all to multiplayer. Alot of casual players just simply buy a game just because they want to play sentry scramble with some friends. Blizzard really didn't have to worry at all about not catering to casuals simply because they'll buy the game anyways. Personally, I feel that SC2 (and HotS) has more rules (rules, not restrictions) to it than BW, which makes it quite hard for a newer person to adapt to. I feel like the devs didn't realize what made gameplay in BW simple was also what made it complex. Small things like being able to take workers off of gas in BW made a big difference, but I feel that the devs just decided to put in 2 gases per expo in SC2 in order to "make it more complex". Or adding in Towers in order to promote having map vision, when good unit control can do the same thing (and is more fun/active). Ofc it should. Everyone loves seeing foreigners do some flavour of the month strategy that abuses some patch imbalance every month. They are such clever players! Exactly, why make 1v1 casual friendly, doesn't make any sense to me. The people who want a challenge are gonna play 1v1, the people that don't are gonna play Hunters, Fastest, Evolves, etc. Just don't make it so its impossible to make a custom game and it won't be a problem. Then there's the argument about getting more people to become pros by making it more accessible. Well most of the pro's in SC2 had no problem with single building selection, and telling workers to mine (or dare I say it, knowing what their actual ranking is), why? Because 90% of them came from BW. If someone can't hack such a small thing, then there is no way that person is going to become pro anyway. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On October 31 2012 16:03 sluggaslamoo wrote: But Lalush, Starcraft should be about strategy. Now foreigners, who mind you, who are much better at strategy than koreans, can win because they don't need to spend 16 hours a day in team houses LITERALLY fighting the AI. I was going to post a hate-filled response. But then i realise ur ID... Sarcasm over the internet is tough to read =/ | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Btw Barrin every time I come close to finally breaking down and writing my thesis on why I've lost interest in SC2 you write a big blog. I'm starting to doubt that its a coincidence but I don't know how you're doing it. | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
On October 31 2012 17:29 Probe1 wrote: Can someone fill me in on who keeps suggesting "cater to casuals"? Cause I hear it pretty often and it's always in some vague, catch all way. Like casual became a buzzword for hear out my crappy idea. Btw Barrin every time I come close to finally breaking down and writing my thesis on why I've lost interest in SC2 you write a big blog. I'm starting to doubt that its a coincidence but I don't know how you're doing it. Basically everything that isn't promoting things strictly limited to the competitive scene is catering to casuals. It's part of why it's such a confusing term. It's sort of like Warcraft, where anything not specifically related to current hardmodes is related to casuals. Therefore any suggestion can be related as "catering to casuals" and shifted to "blizzard doesn't care about what's important" and arguments about casual players and what that even means and their importance. It's a clusterfuck. When I say and said that blizzard needs to support it's casual base more, I'm referring to things like custom maps. And chat rooms. And the arcade. And things that casual players who don't ladder can do to keep them interested in the game without forcing them into a ladder they don't want to be in and frankly they shouldn't be in because they don't treat it competitively and don't want to. And that's fine. When other people stay support the casuals they might mean balance. They might mean "make the game easier for lower level players." They might mean, "Your game is dogshit for anyone not at the top level." They might mean literally anything in between or anything mixed with the point I made. Equally whenever anyone makes a post about anything related to casuals, every mindset and opinion joins in and turns it into a giant mess. And that's why it's sort of a very general thing. /rambly answer | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
The most ironic thing is when i see people flip out in LRs or on Reddit whenever SC2 has its BW-esque moments, whenever someone does Immortal drop micro in PvP, whenever someone drops something on tanks, whenever long good TvT is played, whenever without any reason someone goes suicidal mech vs protoss. Also people love to jizz over someones macro, like saying Flash has uber macro, when someones (smart)storms few places at a time, they even called it Jangbi storms at first. When you see this storm drop once in a year (oh Hero!)... So apparently people want as much BW moments but want to completely stray away from BW (my guess, because its old!). Less hipocrisy, edit: Professional Starcraft is about elitism, SC2 is no different, sooner or later we will have upper class made only from Korean players, and in the end the people who will click fastest will become best. People click as fast in SC2 as they were clicking in BW and even with less macro strain the games are way more boring. Blizzard will never win the the casual battle with Mobas, not with any iteration of Starcraft. Large portion of the people already deemed themselves spectators not players, so i do not see any reason why not to completely separate casual from competetive play like it was in BW with UMS and Ladder/1on1. Make 1on1 hard and drop the hammer on forever gold people that they will never become pros, at least they will realize sooner or try to get better when the game will force them to do so. BW managed to gather big crowd of casual players with UMS and the fact that ladder play was hard and discouraging said nothing about it. Why not make 1on1 truly elitist so we can truly jizz over someones play, like it was in BW. "But what about my dreams? Im good strategist i swear im improving in my gold league, i just need to get a little faster!" Bullshit. But the problem is Blizzard somehow wants to make Starcraft dream where anyone can still dream about being best and in the end its hurting spectating and playing on professional level. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
On October 31 2012 18:40 don_kyuhote wrote: What Totalbiscuit said in that video is so true. I didn't buy sc2 on that night of release in July 2010, despite all that hype around it. A lot of my friends bought it, but I wanted to wait and see if the game was worth my $60. 2 years and 3 months later, still not worth it. I'm not against people buying new games at release, but the whole esport thing was definitely shoved down the throat. I'm not sure if there was a game that was essentially preordained to be an esport from beta like sc2 did without the game proving anything. Same for me as well. The only reason I even had access to the game is because my bro bought it (and he hasn't touched it in two years). | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On October 31 2012 18:40 don_kyuhote wrote: What Totalbiscuit said in that video is so true. I didn't buy sc2 on that night of release in July 2010, despite all that hype around it. A lot of my friends bought it, but I wanted to wait and see if the game was worth my $60. 2 years and 3 months later, still not worth it. I'm not against people buying new games at release, but the whole esport thing was definitely shoved down the throat. I'm not sure if there was a game that was essentially preordained to be an esport from beta like sc2 did without the game proving anything. It's like people said "sc2, you are esports. So now, I want you to be balanced, be fun, be competitive, be good, blah blah blah" when it should have been the other way around. I expected SC2 to suck, but then my girlfriend got my hopes up for it, and talked me in to letting her buy it for me. -.- I should have known better. It was like the Star Wars prequels all over again. | ||
|
romans
Australia18 Posts
On October 31 2012 09:26 Barrin wrote: Perhaps you're thinking that it's okay for companies to make all these casual-friendly games. It is okay! But I'm talking about StarCraft here. For fuck's sake, StarCraft shouldn't thrive in any capacity of watered-down-ness. We don't want it to; we won't let it. A true hardcore competitive RTS game is what the core group of StarCraft players want - masses be damned. I'd be interested in your thoughts on how SC2's player base has changed since release. I think a lot of the players who left did so because the game was too hard already - these are the guys that would make angry posts and complain about balance in every thread. The thing is, the less 'casual-friendly' (does this just mean hard?) you make a game, the more people you exclude from your community and eventually you stop being able to find games and the developer loses all interest in the dwindling player base. For me its hard to say if sc1 or sc2 is harder because I'm terrible at both, but there is something that goes against sc2: micro tricks aren't optional. Back in the day you could win a lot of starcraft games without once doing moving shot on your vults.. but if banelings come at your bio ball you must split for example. Maybe a compromise can exist within a single game, where us mortals can still have fun and those of you that click faster than your CPU's clock rate can still go nuts and impress the community. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On October 31 2012 23:22 romans wrote: I'd be interested in your thoughts on how SC2's player base has changed since release. I think a lot of the players who left did so because the game was too hard already - these are the guys that would make angry posts and complain about balance in every thread. The thing is, the less 'casual-friendly' (does this just mean hard?) you make a game, the more people you exclude from your community and eventually you stop being able to find games and the developer loses all interest in the dwindling player base. For me its hard to say if sc1 or sc2 is harder because I'm terrible at both, but there is something that goes against sc2: micro tricks aren't optional. Back in the day you could win a lot of starcraft games without once doing moving shot on your vults.. but if banelings come at your bio ball you must split for example. Maybe a compromise can exist within a single game, where us mortals can still have fun and those of you that click faster than your CPU's clock rate can still go nuts and impress the community. I actually think its the catering to both that caused its demise. Starcraft tried to be a competitive game, without being one, an eSport, without being one. Its kind of like how politics was a while ago was about capturing the swinging voters, and in the end they looked like they had no leadership, and no vision, so they not only lost the swinging voters, they lost their own voters as well. Now they just go hardball at their own demographic and pull voters to them. I think that's what Blizzard should have done, they should have created a real eSport, and then pull people in with their publicity, or gone completely casual, not some in-between shenanigans. Having no real direction with the game, caused a great rift in the community, of high level and low level players both not getting what they wanted. In the end casuals thought nothing changed from BW and scoffed at it, and Pros thought there wasn't enough to do and too volatile making becoming a Starcraft athlete a much bigger risk. They could have even done that cutting their budget in half because of higher risk, because in the end they would be giving a game that the gamers wanted with slightly less pretty graphics, not some watered down bullshit that casuals find boring, spectators find boring, and e-Athletes find boring. I mean has making difficult games ever really harmed Capcom in anyway? not really, it probably benefited it, because its what their gamers wanted. Even DotA and LoL are worlds apart in their game design despite both being mobas. DotA is trying its best to become a high level moba, and LoL tries its best to garner the widest demographic. I think DotA will become the most successful esport (once it gets out of beta), and LoL will be the most financially successful game. Different goals, but they are very resolute in where they want to end up, I think Blizzard is lacking in this area. | ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
spoiling the original + Show Spoiler + it's a daunting task to write all i have in my mind right now, but i'll try: @Barrin let's go on your gripes with the game: (2) Potential income per worker and per base too high (up to +38% from BW, ridiculous); an income flood gives both players more options and thus less weaknesses and (counter-intuitively) less significant possibilities. This, is the root of the problem. You say that workers mine too much because you would like to see 6-7 bases for each player, multiple skirmishes and drops* ecc ecc... so you try and think you found a solution -> (the FRB mod) first, i want to make you notice that SC2 is inherently faster than bw, thus leading to (3); i'm not talking about game design, i'm talking about the game -speed slider-, if you slide it a tick towards the left you get a more bw-esque speed (Maverck should have more precise data) which should be some 20% slower, which halves your problem with minerals then there's superouman May 06 2012 22:52 I'm against 8m1g and for 6m1g because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out then there's LaLush February 10 2011 01:58 If the future of SC2 is to be played out on GSL-sized maps, one proposition would be increasing the supply cap of the game so you can support ~110 workers and about 5 bases. One of the greatest proponents of an increased supply has long been day[9] himself. and who should blizzard listen to? Barrin, Superouman or LaLush***? what are we trying to accomplish, proposing all these different solutions? Blizzard was actually right to say that we only wanted the carrier back without giving the necessary reasons: because everybody gave different ones, so no reason at all. A good 90% of the "game designs" complaints in this forum are a guy complaining about the sentry, next guy instead liking the sentry and hating the colossus, and the third one doesn't care, he just wants the marauder removed..... As long as this community doesn't find any unity, or at least the top tier of foreigner personalities, we will get nothing. and leaving the balance in the hands of the general community has killed off more than a game. (few i think have played SoulStorm enough to witness it's community driven attempt at balance) this is why it's the root of the problem. (4) Does a race's tier 1 & 1.5 units really need to bypass the defender's advantage? (5) No strong high ground mechanic 4, i seriously don't understand what you mean here, i will just think you're complaining about the warpgate here.... do all the races need a slow reinforcing? how is that different that speedlings covering the natural-to-natural distance in ohana in less than 18 seconds? (without any creep on the map) StarCraft was/is a game of wildly different races balanced against the odds (a race spawning units from a single building? that will never be balanced!) besides, most of the complains about gateway units being weak are actually directed to the stalker, which is what it is due to blink, and not due to warpgate... as a protoss player, i'm happy with the warpgate mechanic, and so is the silent majority of us, i'm not however opposed to some changes (higher warpgate in tech tree? even slower research? w/e) but do we really need to change that? the only thing i'd really hate to see in sc2 would be a protoss stuck on dragoons+zealots again for pretty much all the game. 5, the single thing i liked more of sc2 as a first impact when i installed it was the streamlining. why do workers mine 8 minerals-per-trip instead of 5 if you can only spend in multipliers of 5? and i hate randomness in my hardcore games. You might say, well, it doesn't really matter in the long run..... but it does in the short run. How many times have you seen that last shot from a random ranged hero NOT kill the opponent's hero in DOTA2 due to the highground miss? (i'm talking about a hero just escaping upward, not a -long- ranged duel) And while that doesn't not compromise the game at all, it might be enough to tip a perfectly balanced game in favor of someone. RNG is bad in an RTS. We want a better highground?**** Then we better propose a better mechanic. It could give +1 range, it could give +2 armor (blizzard explicitely tried and disliked that), let's just find a solution and reach the consensus of the community or of the programers. 3, units die faster than bw due to the above mentioned speed slider, and a slight increase in general dps, but really the speed slider is the biggest offender... as per range/sight ecc, those values are lifted pretty straight from bw. as per multitask demand: are you complaining the game is too hard? here we are again on split community..... *which is the desired end of pretty much everyone anyways **almost 2 years later however, most of the concerns of that thread are somewhat gone, even with the early game mineral surge the meta is still a fast-expanding one, and 4 gates, and 3raxes are pretty dead *** whose idea i actually support (the supply one) ****do we? i'm unsure about that, i think LOS blockers are unexplored as a defensive mechanism... what was that map that didn't have a ramp on its natural but had defensive LOS blockers? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @LaLush on moving shot aye, many units are kinda clumsy in sc2, some of it is a latency issue* and most of it is an attack delay problem. there was a proposed change in the attack delay of the stalker, but i'm pretty sure that hasn't been pressed enough, has it? i don't want to reiterate what i said to barrin... besides, the SC2 marine microes pretty much the same if not better than the bw marine, so it's not like blizzard hates micro. (btw i'm unsure if i wanna see perfect muta stacking again, perhaps a middle-of-the-road solution would be better) I suspect their team is kept really small. I have a feeling they're constantly and desperately whining at the company heads i have this feeling too... it might be temporary i hope, to fix some of the issues of diablo3, both the real and imaginary ones** but this is further reason to have, as a community, a short list of priority concerns without going like some threads "remake the warpgate, rebuild the protoss from scratchm ecc ecc" which not only are daunting tasks, they're also absolutely not something on which we can reach a modicum of majority. as i said, you guys have much power than we do; make it happen,don't surrender *remember when blizzard said it would put pseudo lan in the game? i think few do. **i never was a guy to like diablo,still, i have tons of friends still playing it and i believe a lot of the game's supposed flaws where blown out of proportion by the biggest bandwagon ever -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as a side note, the very same TotalBiscuit you quoted is heavily invested in this community and trying to help... how ironic. he also said "if you think corporations have done a lazy job, turn to competion". there isn't any competition in the RTS market, and if SC2 were to really fail (and it isn't right now) you can be assured that there will -never- be one, and the whole genre will die. Why? because blizzard took a risk with sc2, as the last RTS on the market (total war series is turnbased/RTT hybrid, and CoH and End of nations and the new C&C are all various levels of RTT with a really little RTS spiced in) wheter you like it or not, Blizzard took a risk no other company took and will take by releasing a pure RTS (and so, so many young people said, oh it's too similar to bw, it must suck;) At the moment, no one will bother making a serious RTS game because they don't think they can compete with SC2. yes, that must be why since 2007 there hasn't been a successfull AAA classic RTS game with the sole exception of supreme commander and C&C... if they don't think they can compete with SC2 is probably because they can't. Have you ever played a non blizzard RTS? i find it extremely sad that destiny managed to both sadden the split innovators and invigor doomsayers with a single bandwagon... i find more sad that most of the posters here that are "hurray die sc2" are people who never bought sc2 and only play brood war; i know i wouldn't be the first guy to say that i'm sometimes ashamed of having belonged to that category of gamers... i challenge you to a test, however: let's keep KeSPA pros out of this, as they were the pinnacle of skill EVER reached in any game. Watch a foreigner bw tournament, one with the gosugamers top 10 http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/rankings which are absolutely no push-overs (especially sziky, who can play on par with some koreans) say, an altitude. then watch a foreigner Sc2 tournament (a major one) Which one did you actually enjoy more? I chose my ground long time ago, when sc2 was looking much worse off, off of hope (seriously, have you re-watched the post beta sc2 games?..... ugh) With Kespa joining the fray, i'm certain we will have a real StarLeague again, worth of it's legacy. It's not there yet, it's rapidly getting there. ... i knew this post would be hard, after more than 2 hours, it's still a horrible mess >.< i don't get Torte to fix it up do i? | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
__________ Brood War & SC2 are two different beasts. They both have their great moments. Yes in BW it felt like you were "battling the UI", but that's what made it so great imo. It made the game even deeper than it already was. There were so many little things that you can catch to improve your gameplay. SC2 I feel challenges your decision making more. You don't have to worry about idle workers, smartcast, and etc. I feel like your build orders have to be more crisp, decision making is very important, and the game obviously has different macro mechanics. People keep saying SC2 is dying, but I don't believe that. I feel like the game still has plenty of more room to grow. It just needs the right people behind it. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
@Barrin let's go on your gripes with the game: (2) Potential income per worker and per base too high (up to +38% from BW, ridiculous); an income flood gives both players more options and thus less weaknesses and (counter-intuitively) less significant possibilities. This, is the root of the problem. You say that workers mine too much because you would like to see 6-7 bases for each player, multiple skirmishes and drops* etc. etc. so you try and think you found a solution -> (the FRB mod) First, i want to make you notice that SC2 is inherently faster than bw, thus leading to (3); i'm not talking about game design, i'm talking about the game -speed slider-, if you slide it a tick towards the left you get a more bw-esque speed (Maverck should have more precise data) which should be some 20% slower, which halves your problem with minerals Then there's Superouman; May 06 2012 22:52 I'm against 8 mins. 1 gas and for 6 mins. 1 gas because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out Then there's LaLush; February 10 2011 01:58 If the future of SC2 is to be played out on GSL-sized maps, one proposition would be increasing the supply cap of the game so you can support ~110 workers and about 5 bases. One of the greatest proponents of an increased supply has long been day[9] himself. And who should Blizzard listen to? Barrin, Superouman or LaLush? What are we trying to accomplish, proposing all these different solutions? Blizzard was actually right to say that we only wanted the carrier back without giving the necessary reasons: because everybody gave different ones, so no reason at all. A good 90% of the "game designs" complaints in this forum are a guy complaining about the sentry, next guy instead liking the sentry and hating the colossus, and the third one doesn't care, he just wants the marauder removed. As long as this community doesn't find any unity, or at least the top tier of foreigner personalities, we will get nothing. Leaving the balance in the hands of the general community has killed off more than a game (few i think have played SoulStorm enough to witness it's community driven attempt at balance). This is why it's the root of the problem. (4) Does a race's tier 1 & 1.5 units really need to bypass the defender's advantage? (5) No strong high ground mechanic I seriously don't understand what you mean here, I will just think you're complaining about the warpgate here.... do all the races need a slow reinforcing? How is that different that speedlings covering the natural-to-natural distance in ohana in less than 18 seconds? (without any creep on the map) StarCraft was/is a game of wildly different races balanced against the odds (a race spawning units from a single building? that will never be balanced!). Besides, most of the complains about gateway units being weak are actually directed to the stalker, which is what it is due to blink, and not due to warpgate... as a protoss player, i'm happy with the warpgate mechanic, and so is the silent majority of us, i'm not however opposed to some changes (higher warpgate in tech tree? even slower research? w/e) but do we really need to change that? the only thing i'd really hate to see in sc2 would be a protoss stuck on dragoons + zealots again for pretty much all the game. The single thing I liked more of sc2 as a first impact when i installed it was the streamlining. Why do workers mine 8 minerals-per-trip instead of 5 if you can only spend in multipliers of 5, I hate randomness in my hardcore games. You might say, well, it doesn't really matter in the long-run, but it does in the short-run. How many times have you seen that last shot from a random ranged hero NOT kill the opponent's hero in DOTA2 due to the highground miss? (I'm talking about a hero just escaping upward, not a -long- ranged duel) And while that doesn't not compromise the game at all, it might be enough to tip a perfectly balanced game in favor of someone. RNG is bad in an RTS. We want a better highground? Then we better propose a better mechanic. It could give +1 range, it could give +2 armor (blizzard explicitely tried and disliked that), let's just find a solution and reach the consensus of the community or of the programers. Units die faster than BW due to the above mentioned speed slider, and a slight increase in general DPS, but really the speed slider is the biggest offender. As per range/sight, those values are lifted pretty straight from BW. as per multitask demand: are you complaining the game is too hard? here we are again on split community. *which is the desired end of pretty much everyone anyways **almost 2 years later however, most of the concerns of that thread are somewhat gone, even with the early game mineral surge the meta is still a fast-expanding one, and 4 gates, and 3raxes are pretty dead *** whose idea i actually support (the supply one) ****do we? i'm unsure about that, i think LOS blockers are unexplored as a defensive mechanism... what was that map that didn't have a ramp on its natural but had defensive LOS blockers? @LaLush on moving shot Aye, many units are kinda clumsy in SC2 -- some of it is a latency issue. Most of it is an attack delay problem, there was a proposed change in the attack delay of the stalker, but I'm pretty sure that hasn't been pressed enough, has it? I don't want to reiterate what i said to Barrin. Besides, the SC2 marine micros pretty much the same if not better than the BW marine, so it's not like Blizzard hates micro. (btw I'm unsure if i wanna see perfect Muta. stacking again, perhaps a middle-of-the-road solution would be better) I suspect their team is kept really small. I have a feeling they're constantly and desperately whining at the company heads I have this feeling too, it might be temporary I hope, to fix some of the issues of Diablo 3. But this is further reason to have, as a community, a short list of priority concerns without going similar to what some threads say: "remake the warpgate, rebuild the protoss from scratchm ecc ecc" which not only are daunting tasks, they're also absolutely not something on which we can reach a modicum of majority. As I said, you guys have much power than we do; make it happen, don't surrender. *Remember when Blizzard said it would put pseudo-lan in the game? I think few do. **I never was a guy to like Diablo,still, I have tons of friends still playing it and I believe a lot of the game's supposed flaws where blown out of proportion by the biggest bandwagon ever As a side note, the very same TotalBiscuit you quoted is heavily invested in this community and trying to help, how ironic. He also said "if you think corporations have done a lazy job, turn to competition". There isn't any competition in the RTS market, and if SC2 were to really fail (and it isn't right now) you can be assured that there will never be one, and the whole genre will die. Why? Because Blizzard took a risk with SC2, as the last RTS on the market (total war series is turnbased/RTT hybrid, and CoH and End of nations and the new C&C are all various levels of RTT with a really little RTS spiced in) whether you like it or not, Blizzard took a risk no other company took and will take by releasing a pure RTS (and so many young people said: "oh it's too similar to BW, it must suck") At the moment, no one will bother making a serious RTS game because they don't think they can compete with SC2. Yes, that must be why since 2007 there hasn't been a successful AAA classic RTS game with the sole exception of supreme commander and C&C... if they don't think they can compete with SC2 is probably because they can't. Have you ever played a non blizzard RTS? I find it extremely sad that Destiny managed to both sadden the split innovators and invoke doomsayers with a single bandwagon. I find more sad that most of the posters here that are "Hurray die SC2" are people who never bought SC2 and only play Brood War; I know I wouldn't be the first guy to say that I'm sometimes ashamed of having belonged to that category of gamers. I challenge you to a test, however: let's keep KeSPA pros out of this, as they were the pinnacle of skill EVER reached in any game. Watch a foreigner BW tournament, one with the gosugamers top 10, which are absolutely no push-overs (especially Sziky, who can play on par with some Koreans) say, an Altitude. Then watch a foreigner Sc2 tournament (a major one) Which one did you actually enjoy more? I chose my ground long time ago, when SC2 was looking much worse off, off of hope (seriously, have you re-watched the post beta sc2 games? Ugh) With Kespa joining the fray, I'm certain we will have a real StarLeague again, worth of it's legacy. It's not there yet, it's rapidly getting there. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On November 01 2012 01:24 Skirmjan wrote:+ Show Spoiler + it's a daunting task to write all i have in my mind right now, but i'll try: @Barrin let's go on your gripes with the game: (2) Potential income per worker and per base too high (up to +38% from BW, ridiculous); an income flood gives both players more options and thus less weaknesses and (counter-intuitively) less significant possibilities. This, is the root of the problem. You say that workers mine too much because you would like to see 6-7 bases for each player, multiple skirmishes and drops* ecc ecc... so you try and think you found a solution -> (the FRB mod) first, i want to make you notice that SC2 is inherently faster than bw, thus leading to (3); i'm not talking about game design, i'm talking about the game -speed slider-, if you slide it a tick towards the left you get a more bw-esque speed (Maverck should have more precise data) which should be some 20% slower, which halves your problem with minerals then there's superouman May 06 2012 22:52 I'm against 8m1g and for 6m1g because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out then there's LaLush February 10 2011 01:58 If the future of SC2 is to be played out on GSL-sized maps, one proposition would be increasing the supply cap of the game so you can support ~110 workers and about 5 bases. One of the greatest proponents of an increased supply has long been day[9] himself. and who should blizzard listen to? Barrin, Superouman or LaLush***? what are we trying to accomplish, proposing all these different solutions? Blizzard was actually right to say that we only wanted the carrier back without giving the necessary reasons: because everybody gave different ones, so no reason at all. A good 90% of the "game designs" complaints in this forum are a guy complaining about the sentry, next guy instead liking the sentry and hating the colossus, and the third one doesn't care, he just wants the marauder removed..... As long as this community doesn't find any unity, or at least the top tier of foreigner personalities, we will get nothing. and leaving the balance in the hands of the general community has killed off more than a game. (few i think have played SoulStorm enough to witness it's community driven attempt at balance) this is why it's the root of the problem. (4) Does a race's tier 1 & 1.5 units really need to bypass the defender's advantage? (5) No strong high ground mechanic 4, i seriously don't understand what you mean here, i will just think you're complaining about the warpgate here.... do all the races need a slow reinforcing? how is that different that speedlings covering the natural-to-natural distance in ohana in less than 18 seconds? (without any creep on the map) StarCraft was/is a game of wildly different races balanced against the odds (a race spawning units from a single building? that will never be balanced!) besides, most of the complains about gateway units being weak are actually directed to the stalker, which is what it is due to blink, and not due to warpgate... as a protoss player, i'm happy with the warpgate mechanic, and so is the silent majority of us, i'm not however opposed to some changes (higher warpgate in tech tree? even slower research? w/e) but do we really need to change that? the only thing i'd really hate to see in sc2 would be a protoss stuck on dragoons+zealots again for pretty much all the game. 5, the single thing i liked more of sc2 as a first impact when i installed it was the streamlining. why do workers mine 8 minerals-per-trip instead of 5 if you can only spend in multipliers of 5? and i hate randomness in my hardcore games. You might say, well, it doesn't really matter in the long run..... but it does in the short run. How many times have you seen that last shot from a random ranged hero NOT kill the opponent's hero in DOTA2 due to the highground miss? (i'm talking about a hero just escaping upward, not a -long- ranged duel) And while that doesn't not compromise the game at all, it might be enough to tip a perfectly balanced game in favor of someone. RNG is bad in an RTS. We want a better highground?**** Then we better propose a better mechanic. It could give +1 range, it could give +2 armor (blizzard explicitely tried and disliked that), let's just find a solution and reach the consensus of the community or of the programers. 3, units die faster than bw due to the above mentioned speed slider, and a slight increase in general dps, but really the speed slider is the biggest offender... as per range/sight ecc, those values are lifted pretty straight from bw. as per multitask demand: are you complaining the game is too hard? here we are again on split community..... *which is the desired end of pretty much everyone anyways **almost 2 years later however, most of the concerns of that thread are somewhat gone, even with the early game mineral surge the meta is still a fast-expanding one, and 4 gates, and 3raxes are pretty dead *** whose idea i actually support (the supply one) ****do we? i'm unsure about that, i think LOS blockers are unexplored as a defensive mechanism... what was that map that didn't have a ramp on its natural but had defensive LOS blockers? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @LaLush on moving shot aye, many units are kinda clumsy in sc2, some of it is a latency issue* and most of it is an attack delay problem. there was a proposed change in the attack delay of the stalker, but i'm pretty sure that hasn't been pressed enough, has it? i don't want to reiterate what i said to barrin... besides, the SC2 marine microes pretty much the same if not better than the bw marine, so it's not like blizzard hates micro. (btw i'm unsure if i wanna see perfect muta stacking again, perhaps a middle-of-the-road solution would be better) I suspect their team is kept really small. I have a feeling they're constantly and desperately whining at the company heads i have this feeling too... it might be temporary i hope, to fix some of the issues of diablo3, both the real and imaginary ones** but this is further reason to have, as a community, a short list of priority concerns without going like some threads "remake the warpgate, rebuild the protoss from scratchm ecc ecc" which not only are daunting tasks, they're also absolutely not something on which we can reach a modicum of majority. as i said, you guys have much power than we do; make it happen,don't surrender *remember when blizzard said it would put pseudo lan in the game? i think few do. **i never was a guy to like diablo,still, i have tons of friends still playing it and i believe a lot of the game's supposed flaws where blown out of proportion by the biggest bandwagon ever -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as a side note, the very same TotalBiscuit you quoted is heavily invested in this community and trying to help... how ironic. he also said "if you think corporations have done a lazy job, turn to competion". there isn't any competition in the RTS market, and if SC2 were to really fail (and it isn't right now) you can be assured that there will -never- be one, and the whole genre will die. Why? because blizzard took a risk with sc2, as the last RTS on the market (total war series is turnbased/RTT hybrid, and CoH and End of nations and the new C&C are all various levels of RTT with a really little RTS spiced in) wheter you like it or not, Blizzard took a risk no other company took and will take by releasing a pure RTS (and so, so many young people said, oh it's too similar to bw, it must suck;) At the moment, no one will bother making a serious RTS game because they don't think they can compete with SC2. yes, that must be why since 2007 there hasn't been a successfull AAA classic RTS game with the sole exception of supreme commander and C&C... if they don't think they can compete with SC2 is probably because they can't. Have you ever played a non blizzard RTS? i find it extremely sad that destiny managed to both sadden the split innovators and invigor doomsayers with a single bandwagon... i find more sad that most of the posters here that are "hurray die sc2" are people who never bought sc2 and only play brood war; i know i wouldn't be the first guy to say that i'm sometimes ashamed of having belonged to that category of gamers... i challenge you to a test, however: let's keep KeSPA pros out of this, as they were the pinnacle of skill EVER reached in any game. Watch a foreigner bw tournament, one with the gosugamers top 10 http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/rankings which are absolutely no push-overs (especially sziky, who can play on par with some koreans) say, an altitude. then watch a foreigner Sc2 tournament (a major one) Which one did you actually enjoy more? I chose my ground long time ago, when sc2 was looking much worse off, off of hope (seriously, have you re-watched the post beta sc2 games?..... ugh) With Kespa joining the fray, i'm certain we will have a real StarLeague again, worth of it's legacy. It's not there yet, it's rapidly getting there. ... i knew this post would be hard, after more than 2 hours, it's still a horrible mess >.< i don't get Torte to fix it up do i? I actually would agree that game speed is too fast, in that maximization of units by micro is significantly more difficult in SC2, but that doesn't address that the game progresses out of the early-mid game to quickly, or that most units barely even have the ability to be micro'd to maximum effectiveness (lack of moving shot (why the Phoneix doesn't have this boggles my mind), or other intricate micro tricks). This is a good segue to your quip about this breakdown of the workers per base/saturation/army supply issue. The thing about each of those proposals you highlighted is that they approached a similarly identified problem in differing directions. The overall problem that was identified is that from the economics side of SC2, we reach maximum economic effectiveness far too quickly and too easily. This is a huge problem as the economics does not scale with the military effectiveness of the game in the same way. This simultaneously discourages taking bases past three making it very easy to defend your positions, and denies avenues of exploitation by you or your opponent due to their defensive tightness (the positional intricacies of BW are at the very least lessened to a large degree). This isn't the only contributor but I'll just stay with the economics for a second. I don't really agree with your analysis however as you don't explain why these are different solutions. C) The supply solution is the simplest one, in that you don't have to change anything about the current game other than the supply cap in order to attempt to encourage taking more bases, and getting maximum saturation at each base. This solution works to a degree, but does not address any of the other inherent problems with the economics of the game. A+B) Barrins initial solution and subsequently superoumans suggestion you posted were trying to get at the inherent problems with SC2's economics, and by way of that, strategic development. By forcing a better economic progression (reducing worker count and increasing maximum base effectiveness) a number of gameplay problems are addressed. However unfortunately this only solves one problem with SC2, and there are others that would need to be fixed in conjunction with this (for instance, as it stands now, the totality of SC2 mechanics reinforces deathball play significantly). --- Also just so you know, I bought SC2 at release, and never played BW competitively, but the more I began to watch competitive BW, the more it began to highlight some very serious problems with SC2. Please don't lump me into one amorphous category, there are many more like me and not like me out there who have been feeling similarly. Finally, I would say that we as a community aren't split, per se. We as people have differing opinions on ideas, and many people are willing to listen or at least examine various perspectives of their colleagues. Those that simply are not willing to take the time to evaluate someones ideas or find common ground seem to be labeling these writings as extreme and are polarizing civilized discourse. Please, let's not turn our everyday discourse here into how the USA political sphere operates, as that would be a shame. It's not my way or the highway, but maybe my way can illuminate some ideas or conceptual issues that may be important to think about or discuss. Please correct me if I got something wrong here. Also, thanks Torte, but I'm not sure I agree that you should be doing someone else's work. If he spent 2 hours on it, he could spend another 10 minutes formatting it, it's really not a good excuse anymore as there are resources to help everyone. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
No of course not, the genre would be dead, and we'd be stuck with something like MOBAs, which is "free" and mass friendly. So, this "let it burn" attitude is the worst thing you can do if you care about RTS. And, off-topic, equating intelligence with wealth is really stupid. | ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
On November 01 2012 04:08 wo1fwood wrote: I actually would agree that game speed is too fast, in that maximization of units by micro is significantly more difficult in SC2, but that doesn't address that the game progresses out of the early-mid game to quickly, or that most units barely even have the ability to be micro'd to maximum effectiveness (lack of moving shot (why the Phoneix doesn't have this boggles my mind), or other intricate micro tricks). This is a good segue to your quip about this breakdown of the workers per base/saturation/army supply issue. The thing about each of those proposals you highlighted is that they approached a similarly identified problem in differing directions. The overall problem that was identified is that from the economics side of SC2, we reach maximum economic effectiveness far too quickly and too easily. This is a huge problem as the economics does not scale with the military effectiveness of the game in the same way. This simultaneously discourages taking bases past three making it very easy to defend your positions, and denies avenues of exploitation by you or your opponent due to their defensive tightness (the positional intricacies of BW are at the very least lessened to a large degree). This isn't the only contributor but I'll just stay with the economics for a second. I don't really agree with your analysis however as you don't explain why these are different solutions. C) The supply solution is the simplest one, in that you don't have to change anything about the current game other than the supply cap in order to attempt to encourage taking more bases, and getting maximum saturation at each base. This solution works to a degree, but does not address any of the other inherent problems with the economics of the game. A+B) Barrins initial solution and subsequently superoumans suggestion you posted were trying to get at the inherent problems with SC2's economics, and by way of that, strategic development. By forcing a better economic progression (reducing worker count and increasing maximum base effectiveness) a number of gameplay problems are addressed. However unfortunately this only solves one problem with SC2, and there are others that would need to be fixed in conjunction with this (for instance, as it stands now, the totality of SC2 mechanics reinforces deathball play significantly) --- Also just so you know, I bought SC2 at release, and never played BW competitively, but the more I began to watch competitive BW, the more it began to highlight some very serious problems with SC2. Please don't lump me into one amorphous category, there are many more like me and not like me out there who have been feeling similarly. Finally, I would say that we as a community aren't split, per se. We as people have differing opinions on ideas, and many people are willing to listen or at least examine various perspectives of their colleagues. Those that simply are not willing to take the time to evaluate someones ideas or find common ground seem to be labeling these writings as extreme and are polarizing civilized discourse. Please, let's not turn our everyday discourse here into how the USA political sphere operates, as that would be a shame. It's not my way or the highway, but maybe my way can illuminate some ideas or conceptual issues that may be important to think about or discuss. Please correct me if I got something wrong here. Also, thanks Torte, but I'm not sure I agree that you should be doing someone else's work. If he spent 2 hours on it, he could spend another 10 minutes formatting it, it's really not a good excuse anymore as there are resources to help everyone. Well first of all, let me thank torte again and no, he's obviously done me a big favor, i guess i'll have to learn. BBcode isn't really a great help when you don't really know how to organize text; i'll have to learn how to write a wall of text, really >.< First of all, a little disclaimer, i'm not lumping you into any category, nor is anyone who says "i don't like sc2" someone who only played bw or w/e. Besides there's a lot of people that just doesn't like the genre. However, look up in this very thread all the posters that write trashy one-liners on sc2, like "pls burn" or "sc2 always sucked" and you'll find that 70% of those posters have an overwhelming majority of their posts in the bw section and/or other sections and pretty much none in the sc2 one.I only dislike people who are actively crusading against a game they don't play, for the sole reason of it not being another one. Now to the actual points: I actually would agree that game speed is too fast, in that maximization of units by micro is significantly more difficult in SC2, but that doesn't address that the game progresses out of the early-mid game to quickly, or that most units barely even have the ability to be micro'd to maximum effectiveness (lack of moving shot (why the Phoneix doesn't have this boggles my mind), or other intricate micro tricks). This is a good segue to your quip about this breakdown of the workers per base/saturation/army supply issue. I actually disagree that the game speed is too fast, it is really the counterbalance to having good UI and good MBS, you can play faster with the same apms and keep the difficulty pretty much where it was... the collateral damage is that small groups of unit micro becomes much harder (to micro <12 units in sc2 is harder than to micro them in bw, due to the speed alone, stupid goons bugging not considered :D i'm talking about basic dancing here ) but i'd say it's a decent price for that. About moving shot, the Phoenix is fine as it is actually, having real moving shot would make them even harder to use and less apt to counter mutas than they are and require massive buffs which would break the nice balance they have in PvP, and believe me, they're the saving grace of that MU. Although,yes, most units in sc2 do lack decent moving shots, barring the marine and somewhat the marauder, but it's a problem of attack delay and latency, and we should press blizzard to fix both instead of crying armageddon. I don't really agree with your analysis however as you don't explain why these are different solutions. C) The supply solution is the simplest one, in that you don't have to change anything about the current game other than the supply cap in order to attempt to encourage taking more bases, and getting maximum saturation at each base. This solution works to a degree, but does not address any of the other inherent problems with the economics of the game. A+B) Barrins initial solution and subsequently superoumans suggestion you posted were trying to get at the inherent problems with SC2's economics, and by way of that, strategic development. By forcing a better economic progression (reducing worker count and increasing maximum base effectiveness) a number of gameplay problems are addressed. However unfortunately this only solves one problem with SC2, and there are others that would need to be fixed in conjunction with this (for instance, as it stands now, the totality of SC2 mechanics reinforces deathball play significantly) I fail to understand this paragraph. A,B,C are clearly separate solutions, even if A+B run on a somewhat similar method (but they are different,both actually are barrin's solutions, and he went from B to A) we reach maximum economic effectiveness far too quickly and too easily. This is really for a simple, simple reason.Every player above masters knows that the optimal number for workers is + o - 80. This means that you can only mine from 4 bases (without getting optimal saturation in the 4th) and maybe take a gas-only 5th.It would be enough to make it so that there's a good incentive to get 20 more workers and all those numbers scale by +1 bases, with 40 more (120 total) we are probably even wandering too far (six bases, with a 7th for gas).Tweaking the supply would do this, as would introducing a mechanic for supply free workers/a separate supply counter for workers (all of the above is different for Terran as they have mules, but i wouldn't want all 3 races to receive that). I also believe that raising the supply limit would limit the effectiveness of some deathballs just by sheer unit crowd... imagine having +50 supply in every army: which would also free supply to harass without losing too much in the current armies firepower. T:Bioballs start scaling really badly and forces terran to play like muta/ling or to use either biomech,pure mech, or sky terran Z: Zerglings and roaches suffer a lot and start to require good surrounds P: so do Zealots, and to a much lesser degree Archons. thus giving the endgame-scenarios to mech, robo/stargate compositions, and on the zerg side either hydra/viper/host (due to range supremacy) and BL infestor (ultras would be in somewhere, with burrow charge) and/or to rapidly remaxing armies. but that doesn't address that the game progresses out of the early-mid game to quickly This is entirely a metagame issue, with perhaps some small balance numbers implied (is lategame tech too strong?) Anyways, when protoss opens FFE the early game is pretty much destroyed as a consequence of that build, it happened in bw too... but bw's mid game isn't longer because there's less income, it's longer because playing the mid game has a better success rate than fast-teching and skipping it... as you see, metagame/balance related. Remember that HotS is bringing in pretty much a space controller for every race, which should help with the defense of expos. I believe that early-to-mid game sc2 is pretty fine, it just doesn't scale that well into the end game (from the lategame). "B" touches the number of minerals in a base and nothing else, and it does not really touch the core of the problem IMO. "A" touches the gather rate, thus slowing the game down in another way, and still i believe doesn't touch the problem. The problem here is the end-game economic progression, and you seem to agree with me on that. Finally, I would say that we as a community aren't split, per se. Discussion is healty, undecisiveness is not. The community is pulling blizzard in a thousand different directions, just look a the various mods to see that... i can't pull the game left while you pull it right, even if starcraft was a total democracy (and isn't) someone has to win the elections and govern the country. Which btw is blizzard's job, but what can a mayor do if he doesn't have at least a majority to support him? Just try imagining being Dayvie for a moment T_T. as a closing paragraph, let me add that some armies are inhenently deathballish as a nature, for example every hydralisk/goon army when not facing massive aoe (tanks, storm) are balled up by their own players to maximize effectivness, and with pre-lurker marines player struggle to make them ball up. the very same BW mech is simultaneously the most spread out composition when defending, and the most balled up when moving/pushing :D don't believe me? watch even some famous videos like jangbi's best storm ever, and remember that the bw cam is much more zoomed in than the sc2 one Please stop with the bandwagon that every deathball is bad, they're too prevalent in sc2, but they cannot and must not disappear. Please PM me if some grammar mistakes bother you, or you have suggestions on how to better format a long-ish post | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
Skirmjan as a closing paragraph, let me add that some armies are inhenently deathballish as a nature, for example every hydralisk/goon army when not facing massive aoe (tanks, storm) are balled up by their own players to maximize effectivness, and with pre-lurker marines player struggle to make them ball up. the very same BW mech is simultaneously the most spread out composition when defending, and the most balled up when moving/pushing :D don't believe me? watch even some famous videos like jangbi's best storm ever, and remember that the bw cam is much more zoomed in than the sc2 one Please stop with the bandwagon that every deathball is bad, they're too prevalent in sc2, but they cannot and must not disappear. Deathball wasn't bad in broodwar because in fact watching 200/200 army clashing each other is what made bw feels really battle huge and glorious . Sc2 on the other hand ? engagement doesn't last that long enough and usually if the other player has a better composition than his opponent there is no chance for the opponent to make a come back from there. | ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
Deathball wasn't bad in broodwar because in fact watching 200/200 army clashing each other is what made bw feels really battle huge and glorious . Sc2 on the other hand ? engagement doesn't last that long enough and usually if the other player has a better composition than his opponent there is no chance for the opponent to make a come back from there. Ehm, excuse me, i wrote a wall post about how the dps has only slightly went up in sc2 (units hp did too tho), and the faster battles are a byproduct of the better arc-making of the AI and the speed slider... would slow up the game make you like it more? I can't see why. usually if the other player has a better composition than his opponent there is no chance for the opponent to make a come back from there. This one was true a year ago or more, watch a game like Flash vs Ryung+ Show Spoiler + in this season's up&down to see more than a couple 200/200 battles, mostly ending with a decisive victory and the game going on to be flipped on its head in the next battle where the tables turn... (the loser dies by mineral-starving in the end) as matchups, PvTs and PvZs usually have the most volatility (mostly due to the lackluster protoss defence and inability to run from losing engagements, which is why we're getting the Mothership Core, coupled with the allinish metagame of PvZ and the specific strenghts of Inf/BL) but bio-mech TvZs are based on a lot of army trades, and feature a lot of comebacks (go watch some of the best sc2 games, and you'll see multiple comebacks) if the other player has a better composition Define better composition please, as no bw protoss player will ever be able to recover his pure zea+goon force after a battle(a stomp) by ultra/crackling/defiler nor will a bw terran be able to play bio TvP at all without all in. Extremes must exist, and if you've ignored something or been too greedy you deserve to lose, otherwise the starsense is moot. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
| ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
On November 03 2012 02:28 Sawamura wrote: Bio TvP was never pushed to the limit in broodwar it could be a standard thing if upmagic wasn't involved in the match fixing . Sigh, your first post was decent but now you're trying to climb mirrors. First of all, i could say "you know, there could be no deathballs if boxer kept playing sc2" and have the same credibility of that statement. Besides, not even the real BW revolutionists did all by themselves, as fantasy's mech TvZ is the work of Coach Oov and his team, and everybody knows that the Bisu build is actually not Bisu's. If either of these players were involved in a match fix, their builds would've survived, being not their own original work. Third, a single player is never an argument for anything, otherwise BW Terran is clearly massively overpowered or other stupid stuff like that (and that's basing it on a couple ones, lol). Not sure what standards you are measuring here but saying extremes must exist means throwing everything in a deathball and hoping up for the best is the best strategy I have to agree with that This is a Straw man, i never said anything like that. It's an accepted truth that some armies are stronger than others, and that an equally skilled Terran player with a mech 200/200 army will always win the battle against a Protoss army without arbiters or carriers ignoring the fact that terran is more apm intensive than protoss and what not. You wish to refute that? It's also pretty known that some races are stronger in some phases of the game. Starsense is not moot actually better players tend to come back from really bad situations where they "should" be dead . This is not Starsense, when a player survives a difficult solution through micro, it's just that,micro. Starsense is having knowledge of what timings can be hit, which anti timings to use, which timing/anti timing your opponent is really doing and in general what to do. If Bisu somehow smells Jaedong's hydra bust with insufficient scouting info, but still dies to it, his Starsense was still really good. MC surviving a scouted roach agggression which would defeat every other player, is not Starsense, but incredible micro. Not sure how the dps has been slightly gone up in sc2 when a huge deathball in sc2 literally just tear to bits to any units smaller than it's deathball size . "how" faster... perhaps 20% or something? did you read anything about the sc2 slider speed? T_T also armies do not scale in power linearly but exponentially... it's just Mathematics please answer to me properly with facts and objective reasoning, i seriously feel like i'm the one still playing Bw instead of the other way around... | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
| ||
|
Mysti_
France185 Posts
I'm hoping it will burn and die slowly but surely. The only games worth playing imo are Dota 2 (only strategy game interesting atm) and indie games like Amnesia, Trine 2, Limbo... Portal 2 was nice too. There are only a few good games that value intelect and reflexion over simplification, absence of difficulty and a total assistance of the player leading to a false sense of reward in the form of the so called "achievements" that appeared in every game since some time already. I've noticed that so far for every franchise, the bigger the publisher is the worse the games they develop are going to be. The only exception being Valve since they have no shareholders and own their capital at 100%, so there is no ingerence in their management and decisions. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
On November 04 2012 04:17 ArvickHero wrote: hmmmm? BW is dead? This is news to me Last time I checked, hiya got owned by sky. But seriously, BW lives on, even now. I am excited to see where it goes from here. | ||
|
BurnedRice
59 Posts
Let me put it to you this way: If you take away a samurai's sword and give him an ak 47 instead, you will make a better warrior, but he won't have as much fun killing his enemies. Given this, I think it would be appropriate to give SCBW the undisputed title of the greatest micro based RTS game available and call SC2 starcraft light. This also means however that if you want to make progress in the RTS genre you either have to continue the micro approach by making the micro system even more complex than SCBW, or to look elsewhere to new ideas outside the general SCBW/AOE style game. The best place to look for these is in the TA-Supcom FA lineage of RTS games. The ideas here are very different from SCBW and allow for a much more complex and deep game(don't believe me, then believe TLO), without relying heavily on complication of the UI to do so. In fact the philosophy behind the UI in Supcom FA is the be as unobtrusive as possible and to allow the player as much freedom as possible. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
Well you are dedicated to Supcom FA, I'll give you that. I do make the case that micro leads more tools for strategy. I'd go so far as to say SCBW's success as a competitive game hinged on the odd marriage of an RTS game combined with the unit control of a Fighting Game. Intelligence and planning combined with twitch control. 10 minutes in, but I really don't see how that game you're showing could ever develop as a satisfying viewing experience. Half the time, your watching little dots move around the screen. It'd be like watching the SC mini-map and zooming into the battle periodically. There may be interesting things going on in an intellectual sense, but it's not a very visceral experience. You need both for a game to be a successful RTS spectator sport in my opinion. | ||
|
BurnedRice
59 Posts
On November 06 2012 17:25 Falling wrote: @BurnedRice Well you are dedicated to Supcom FA, I'll give you that. I do make the case that micro leads more tools for strategy. I'd go so far as to say SCBW's success as a competitive game hinged on the odd marriage of an RTS game combined with the unit control of a Fighting Game. Intelligence and planning combined with twitch control. 10 minutes in, but I really don't see how that game you're showing could ever develop as a satisfying viewing experience. Half the time, your watching little dots move around the screen. It'd be like watching the SC mini-map and zooming into the battle periodically. There may be interesting things going on in an intellectual sense, but it's not a very visceral experience. You need both for a game to be a successful RTS spectator sport in my opinion. Yes. I think you are exactly right. SCBW took a simple AOE style game and multiplied its complexity, creating a huge space for players to explore, by introducing fighting game elements. I think the statement "..micro leads to more tools for strategy.," is correct in some cases, as above, but is not always true. For example the average micro cost of executing together with a given player's apm determines how many tactics are possible to execute simultaneously. A player's max APM is obviously limited, therefore simplifying micro can lead to more simultaneous tactics executed, which leads to many more possible situations in a game, increasing overall depth. Yes a lot of people get turned away from supcom FA because they see the dots, but that is inevitable with the zooming ability and once you zoom in a few times and see the actual units in action those dots have a lot more meaning. When you play the game you are forced to play zoomed in a lot of the time in order to effectively micro, watching the game in zoomed out mode allows to thing of the overall strategy, but of course it is impossible if you don't know the significance of the dots. You are right it is not fun to watch until you understand what is going on, but that can be said of any game. The game is extremely intense when you play it, you are always microing while simultaneously thinking of 5 different places, reading the game, executing tactics and developing the overall strategy. When you watch a game played by high skilled players you can pretend you are playing and have that experience with them(without the stress), just like you can in SCBW and SC2 casted games. Back to the main topic: SC2 needs fresh ideas that add depth without destroying the game, this maybe an impossible task and the better option for a fan of RTS may be to play something else for a while, while blizzard tries to do magic. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 06 2012 17:42 BurnedRice wrote: I think the statement "..micro leads to more tools for strategy.," is correct in some cases, as above, but is not always true. For example the average micro cost of executing together with a given player's apm determines how many tactics are possible to execute simultaneously. A player's max APM is obviously limited, therefore simplifying micro can lead to more simultaneous tactics executed, which leads to many more possible situations in a game, increasing overall depth. I wouldn't say that increases depth at all, though - it only increases strategic breadth. The only thing you gain is a greater variety of situations and a bigger overall decision "tree", but if anything, it takes away from the depth of gameplay by overemphasizing one element in favor of another that requires a fundamentally different skillset. Depth is gained by adding MORE ways in which one player can be better than the other in a meaningful and rewarding way. So that some players can win because they're faster, some can win because they're smarter and make better split-second decisions, some can win because they multitask better, some can win because they control their units better, some can win because they craft innovative strategies, some can win because they're good at mind games and trickery, and so on. The way these fundamentally different skillsets interact with one another is what creates genuinely interesting situations. And in order for these to happen, your design must leave enough space (skill cap) on as many of these specific skills as possible, allowing the players to truly exploit what they're good at or what their opponent is bad at. The less of these avenues you leave room for in your game, the more "samey" every match and every player will feel. Sure, they may use more different strategies, and different units in different ways, so you can see different things happening on the screen, but they'll still all be doing the same thing and playing the same way. The faster player won't be able to utilize his raw apm, an ex-WC3 pro won't have this one unit that he can get really good at microing that can win him a ton of games, Bisu won't be able to get the most out of his multitasking, etc. | ||
|
BurnedRice
59 Posts
On November 06 2012 20:39 Talin wrote: I wouldn't say that increases depth at all, though - it only increases strategic breadth. The only thing you gain is a greater variety of situations and a bigger overall decision "tree", but if anything, it takes away from the depth of gameplay by overemphasizing one element in favor of another that requires a fundamentally different skillset. Depth is gained by adding MORE ways in which one player can be better than the other in a meaningful and rewarding way. So that some players can win because they're faster, some can win because they're smarter and make better split-second decisions, some can win because they multitask better, some can win because they control their units better, some can win because they craft innovative strategies, some can win because they're good at mind games and trickery, and so on. The way these fundamentally different skillsets interact with one another is what creates genuinely interesting situations. And in order for these to happen, your design must leave enough space (skill cap) on as many of these specific skills as possible, allowing the players to truly exploit what they're good at or what their opponent is bad at. The less of these avenues you leave room for in your game, the more "samey" every match and every player will feel. Sure, they may use more different strategies, and different units in different ways, so you can see different things happening on the screen, but they'll still all be doing the same thing and playing the same way. The faster player won't be able to utilize his raw apm, an ex-WC3 pro won't have this one unit that he can get really good at microing that can win him a ton of games, Bisu won't be able to get the most out of his multitasking, etc. Your two middle paragraphs(2,3) are exactly correct. There must be enough skill cap in as many different skills as possible. This includes micro, where the execution of a given tactic by a pro vs average vs noob should have very different results. In your first paragraph you try to argue that increasing strategic breadth decreases depth. This is in complete contradiction with what you are saying in paragraph 3. Which leads to what you described as "samey" in paragraph 4. The second sentence in paragraph 4 is self contradictory however and sentence 3 in paragraph 4 seems like a response to some who wanted to remove micro from the game. I never said remove micro from the game. Think about a fighting game, like mortal kombat, where you are doing non-stop combo's. That is completely micro and every game is "samey". The genius of SCBW was to decrease that micro requirement to a point where other skill sets like multitasking on multiple units in multiple places, resource generation, scouting, etc. became necessary and greatly increased depth. Now imagine that mortal kombat player coming up to you and saying that his game has more strategy than SCBW because you need fundamentally different skills sets to interact to crease more genuinely interesting situations.... Wouldn't that kind of mess with your head a little? That's how I feel right now. | ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
Just saying. | ||
|
vaL4r
Germany240 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
