EPTGoodnight, BroodWar - Page 14
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Terrorbladder
2719 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On February 21 2017 16:19 Terrorbladder wrote: Sometimes I wonder how the meta would change if SC/SC2 gave each players starting money à la WC3... Don't players start with 50 minerals in either game? | ||
|
Terrorbladder
2719 Posts
On February 21 2017 18:20 eviltomahawk wrote: I mean, to the extent that WC3 gives, where you can immediately build basic buildings with starting money. Meanwhile SC/SC2 only gives enough money to make a worker.Don't players start with 50 minerals in either game? | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On February 21 2017 18:46 Terrorbladder wrote: I mean, to the extent that WC3 gives, where you can immediately build basic buildings with starting money. Meanwhile SC/SC2 only gives enough money to make a worker. Oh I see. I feel like the games may end up needing early-game rebalancing to avoid rushes and proxies from becoming too strong. The factions in WC3 felt like they had more built-in racial defensive abilities. | ||
|
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
On February 21 2017 15:23 toriak wrote: a have a perfect balance for u every race starts with 0 workers and 49 minerals SC2 design team says, "Sounds like a winner!".  | ||
|
bartus88
Netherlands491 Posts
On February 21 2017 07:45 Hildegard wrote: I don't get the need to bash SC2 constantly. Both BW and SC2 have unreachable skill-caps. Considering that it doesn't really matter if one is more demanding than the other. I enjoy and watch both games since years. However I think BW balance is often looked at with rose-tinted glasses. In my opinion SC2 is better balanced than BW. SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. But that is not something most people here would like to hear, they can only focus on the negatives of SC2. The few pages of this thread are pretty sad to read. Both are amazing games, but this community is way too blinded by bitterness to have a decent discussion. There's a good reason I went from reading this subforum daily to reading it once every 3 months, around the time this thread was made. | ||
|
darktreb
United States3016 Posts
On February 21 2017 19:26 bartus88 wrote: SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. But that is not something most people here would like to hear, they can only focus on the negatives of SC2. The few pages of this thread are pretty sad to read. Both are amazing games, but this community is way too blinded by bitterness to have a decent discussion. There's a good reason I went from reading this subforum daily to reading it once every 3 months, around the time this thread was made. Haha we've come full circle. SC2 has so little left to hang its hat on that people are resorting to defending it as a better balanced game. At this point SC2 supporters aren't even trying to pretend it's a more fun game to play, or more exciting to watch, or better in any way that actually matters. And then there's the annoying SC2 fan whine of "wahh BW fans so bitter, wahh why can't you just enjoy both games". This is such an obnoxious complaint. It's also hypocritical - how about you SC2 fans stop being so sensitive about this? It's the lamest complaint - it's basically saying "yes, you BW fans were completely right 5+ years ago even while the vast majority of people were mocking, doubting, and dismissing your views, but now you have the nerve to remind us you were right". SC2 was the reason for the unjust, un-meritocratic, premature killing of the BW pro scene. BW fans don't resent SC2 because it's another Starcraft game - that would have been fine. It's that Blizzard forced the BW teams + leagues to switch, via threat of lawsuit. This is the part that really burns every BW fan. If SC2 had taken over on merit, that would have been ok. All BW fans wanted was a fair chance, but that chance was never given. Notice how BW fans don't resent games like LoL? Sure, not every BW fan likes MoBa gameplay, but successful MoBa's earned the position they have today, rather than being born with a silver spoon up their ass and still managing to squander the opportunity. Even with the current revival of the scene, we'll never know what BW could have been. We'll never know how the legacies of various legends would have played out, what a world with someone like Bisu on ACE would have looked like, or how many up-and-comers might have infused the scene with fresh talent. Yes, I'm happy that BW is where it is today. But things like Afreeca and Twitch would have happened no matter what. What a world the pro BW scene might look like today, with all the technological and product developments of the past five years, had it never been stuffed into a coffin and buried alive. Are there bigger problems in the world than what happened to BW? Of course, far bigger. But we're in a BW forum FFS. What Blizz + SC2 did to BW is the game world equivalent a corrupt police officer wrongfully imprisoning our friend. Now our friend is free again, and we're celebrating their freedom. And guess what, we enjoy the fact that the shitty corrupt police officer who caused all that pain has now fallen on hard times, for the same reason people enjoy seeing a bad guy get his comeuppance at the end of a movie, even after the good guys have already won. That's "unnecessary bashing" too if you want to look at it that way. The rest of it will look at it the way it really is - sweet, sweet justice. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2267 Posts
On February 21 2017 19:26 bartus88 wrote: SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. But that is not something most people here would like to hear, they can only focus on the negatives of SC2. The few pages of this thread are pretty sad to read. Both are amazing games, but this community is way too blinded by bitterness to have a decent discussion. There's a good reason I went from reading this subforum daily to reading it once every 3 months, around the time this thread was made. PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF *long histerical laugh* | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1878 Posts
On February 21 2017 19:26 bartus88 wrote: SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. This makes no sense at all. No matchups happen in a vacuum, you always play on maps, and SC2 had an assload of imbalanced maps throughout its history. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On February 21 2017 07:03 Jae Zedong wrote: Alright, thats true actually, and was somewhat implied in what i said. RTS is never going to be mainstream unless its VERY dumbed down, so there attempts were sort of schizophrenic. Make things easier in the mistaken belief you can go mainstream 'here', but make it really hard to placate esports/hardcore fans 'there'. Oh well, heres to sc3.^ Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. They marketed SC2 as a mainstream game, they didn't design it like one. SC2 may be less mechanically demanding than BW, but it's easily the second most demanding game in the world after BW. It's not a casual game, and if you think SC2's failure is because it's too "newbie friendly" you're way off. We as a BW community may think it is, but the wider gaming world sure as hell doesn't. The game has 99 problems but casualness ain't one.  Edit: SC2 was a financial success but I would say it overall was a critical failure, as the overall impression by gamers has been negative (or at least enough below expectations of positive to be called a failure of sorts). It 'failed' to financially dominate the market, which I doubt was even blizzards goal, by not going mainstream enough. But it also failed in another sense, it didnt convince the hardcore gamers either. if it went hardcore at least it could be said it succeeded in bringing around blizzard fan boys, yada yada. In other words, there is more than one metric for success, and sc2 definitely could of been a success in a certain light if it had either been more competitive or less. But as it was it just pissed both camps off and will be remembered for its flawed game design. On February 21 2017 19:26 bartus88 wrote: sc2 was/is balanced with maps as well (any game with a rotating map pool and territorial features that impact gameplay necessarily is a game where maps influence balance. this is basic and unassailable logic), hell they disallowed certain forms of spawns just to help along balance...SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. But that is not something most people here would like to hear, they can only focus on the negatives of SC2. The few pages of this thread are pretty sad to read. Both are amazing games, but this community is way too blinded by bitterness to have a decent discussion. There's a good reason I went from reading this subforum daily to reading it once every 3 months, around the time this thread was made. -Gold bases were imbalanced -All small maps stopped being played because of terran rushes -Island maps were imbalanced and never played -Semi island maps were imbalanced and never played -Only cross spawns Then there are other features like ramp size and natural layout that impact sc2's balance, or how the map splits--- the actual selection of features that create a balanced sc2 game were fairly narrow. More narrow than broodwars in fact! | ||
|
Demurity
United States424 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
Edit: SC2 was a financial success but I would say it overall was a critical failure, as the overall impression by gamers has been negative (or at least enough below expectations of positive to be called a failure of sorts). It 'failed' to financially dominate the market, which I doubt was even blizzards goal, by not going mainstream enough. But it also failed in another sense, it didnt convince the hardcore gamers either. if it went hardcore at least it could be said it succeeded in bringing around blizzard fan boys, yada yada. In other words, there is more than one metric for success, and sc2 definitely could of been a success in a certain light if it had either been more competitive or less. But as it was it just pissed both camps off and will be remembered for its flawed game design. How does this make any sense? It was critically praised. It wasn't exactly panned. And how did not dominate the market? Do you know of any other successful RTSes in the space? The most successful RTS outside of it are the Total War games which still only do a fraction of the sales. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
On February 22 2017 03:07 intotheheart wrote: Let's not deny that SC2 made money, but I think the post you're referring to was talking about its success as an eSport and the size of the fanbase this far down the road more than anything else. "failed to financially dominate the market" "critical failure" were the keywords that made me think otherwise. I don't know, overall I disagree because I think it ignores the accomplishments SC2 did excel at, given the nature of an unpopular genre, ESPECIALLY in the West. I feel like people are comparing SC2 with the insanely successful MOBAs and Counterstrike and thinking its size is shit in comparison, when I don't think they're exactly comparable. If we consider the size and scope of RTS esports in the West since 2000, SC2 was a massive success in that respect. SC2 is still a massive success globally when you look at the interest of 1v1 esports, which aren't exactly the most popular thing on the planet nowadays. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
It's definitely one of the most popular eSports which is played 1v1, because in a 5v5 you can play with friends or blame others for your shortcomings. Which is why I mostly played LoL in high school more than SC2. 1v1 has... RTS Fighting Games what else? (seriously asking since I don't keep up with non-SC/non-DotA eSports. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
Many of these are 'good' problems to have, they are failures in light of what could have been, not abject failures in themselves. But clearly if sc2 was intended to be a highly competitive, balanced exciting esport, it swung high but largely missed its mark. And if the goal was to be mainstream it also failed to hit its mark. | ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
On February 22 2017 03:50 Dazed_Spy wrote: Never said it didnt make money, I said it didnt dominate the PC gaming market. And who cares what a bunch of witless bribed critics say? I wasnt referring to them, but the population that actually played the game. It was panned. There were dozens and dozens and dozens of balance patches to the game and gradual additions to their inept battle.net. The game came out sloppy and it went down sloppy, even sc2 fans were continuously annoyed by the failures to balance, the failures in the design, and so on. SC2 was a failure in many lights; it didnt become a well respected sustainable esport down the line, it became niche and failed to even unite the blizzard RTS fan base, but at the same time it didnt broaden the appeal of RTS, it was 'merely' the most popular RTS. Many of these are 'good' problems to have, they are failures in light of what could have been, not abject failures in themselves. But clearly if sc2 was intended to be a highly competitive, balanced exciting esport, it swung high but largely missed its mark. And if the goal was to be mainstream it also failed to hit its mark. You said ""failed to financially dominate the market". It totally and utterly crushed the RTS market. You're making it seem like SC2 is in the same boat as CnC4/RA3 or something, an actual failure. And even if you look at user scores and critic scores, it wasn't panned,like I said I have no clue what you're even talking about there. I also have no clue what you're talking about when you say "dozens of balance patches". Should we call every game that has multiple balance patches failures? And looking at the state of Western BW and WC3 tournaments/playerbase post 2010, I'd argue it did its job at uniting the playerbase. RTS in itself is very niche, so I don't know how you can claim it became niche. And isn't the fact that it is the most popular RTS in itself mean it had broad appeal? We had a lot of people get involved with pro gaming and especially Team Liquid, only because of SC2. I'm not saying the game doesn't have its flaws and problems, it had and still has tons, but to dismiss it as a failure is incredibly disingenuous. | ||
|
MuNi
United States72 Posts
| ||
|
Demurity
United States424 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10232 Posts
On February 21 2017 19:26 bartus88 wrote: SC2 is undeniably better balanced, the BW community had to do the balancing by making maps that counter-acted the imbalances. But that is not something most people here would like to hear, they can only focus on the negatives of SC2. The few pages of this thread are pretty sad to read. Both are amazing games, but this community is way too blinded by bitterness to have a decent discussion. There's a good reason I went from reading this subforum daily to reading it once every 3 months, around the time this thread was made. | ||
| ||
