| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On June 23 2019 09:22 Dazed. wrote: saying aoe2 is alive because 1k people play it is like saying tribes 2 is alive. Yeah there are servers and you can get games, but the parties over. Just want to chime in to say that competitive AoE2 was front page of Twitch about a month ago with ~15-20k concurrent viewers. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On June 23 2019 08:52 Dazed. wrote: I literally had eight real life friends who were heavily into broodwar at one point, every single one of them quit citing a stale map pool and meta as the reason. I've seen dozens of players come and go for the same reason. Well plenty quit SC2 and that game was changing all the time.The expansions were literally seperate games. But anyway, blizzard has agreed to patch Warcraft 3 balance. So we will see if it makes any difference to an old games playerbase long term. My guess is it won't make a meaningful difference. | ||
|
Cheesefome
311 Posts
| ||
|
Cheesefome
311 Posts
On June 21 2019 02:00 sM.Zik wrote: Why are they even making these polls if they don't use the result? 2-3 months ago they made a poll for the input bug, I believe 97% we're for, and they never added it into the game. This ^^ lol. The polls are pointless if they aren't actually going to do what the community votes for. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On June 23 2019 12:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well plenty quit SC2 and that game was changing all the time.The expansions were literally seperate games. But anyway, blizzard has agreed to patch Warcraft 3 balance. So we will see if it makes any difference to an old games playerbase long term. My guess is it won't make a meaningful difference. aren't there like major issues on warcraft 3 since some patch after they announced reforged though? like custom games aborting/disconects, ladder or matchmaking problems and etc. seen many posts on blizzard classic forums. Also people getting crashes and performance issues since some patch. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On June 23 2019 18:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: aren't there like major issues on warcraft 3 since some patch after they announced reforged though? like custom games aborting/disconects, ladder or matchmaking problems and etc. seen many posts on blizzard classic forums. Also people getting crashes and performance issues since some patch. Probably, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Those War3 bnet forums are total cancer BTW, just seen them now for the first time. | ||
|
GoShox
United States1835 Posts
On June 23 2019 18:48 ProMeTheus112 wrote: aren't there like major issues on warcraft 3 since some patch after they announced reforged though? like custom games aborting/disconects, ladder or matchmaking problems and etc. seen many posts on blizzard classic forums. Also people getting crashes and performance issues since some patch. They straight up took down arranged team matchmaking until Reforged is out. Not a very good look to take away a feature from a game that's worked for years | ||
|
Counc1l
33 Posts
There are many reasons why I suspect most brood war players are apprehensive about balance adjustments applied to unit stats. Its effects on the game's balance are difficult to predict. Furthermore, most brood war players are trying to improve in the game and have spent considerable time understanding its ins and outs. I think most people who play competitively are not interested in rethinking every build they and their opponent may use. I disagree with the subjective complaints about a stagnant metagame. Strategies like late mechanic and 111 did not become unstoppable strategies as some articulated, and while they are still great strategies, they have just become another viable option that Terrans have. I personally feel like starcraft strategy is under a constant state of evolution, even though I think this conversation is so subjective that its discussion is not necessarily particularly fruitful. There are only so many compositions and styles in brood war, eventually one is bound to have seen most of them. I suppose this is why some people might say things like the 111 weren't revolutionary or particularly exciting, things that have resembled it in some aspects have already existed. Even if we are to agree with the assertion that game meta stagnation has caused people to become bored of the game, I do not see how this alone would explain why so many people decided to stop playing Starcraft (maybe people who watch pros play). A majority of Starcraft players are simply not at a level of skill or game understanding where the only legitimate and viable way to play the game is whichever style accords with the meta. Many current players are already using strategies that scarcely resemble what the pros are doing. They have some success with it because they understand that their strategy is able to punish some weaknesses that "standard" builds have when in the control of a non-pro or non-advanced player. Such players are common as well, by my estimation. If one is not satisfied with this state of affairs, they are asking for either the impossible, or a game that no longer looks like brood war. Besides some reasons I stated above, I think the reason people are often hostile to suggestions to change the game are because such suggestions are usually not seriously researched or well thought out, while the risk that such changes could render brood war melee something that feels completely different is real. Usually, these suggestions are made by players who are unaware that units they want to change already serve a purpose in brood war of which they are unaware. For example, there are some currently existing legitimate uses of the guardian and the queen in even pro level play, and yet people still sometimes suggest units like this should be changed- even when they are not aware of how such units already interact with the meta. Finally, I think it's debatable what is contributing to brood war not growing faster than it does currently. I know of basically no RTS games that are extremely popular these days. Perhaps the genre is not as popular. Perhaps prospective players do not find appealing the notion that starcraft requires so much time for players to gain proficiency, or because it is difficult to even understand what is going on or why some micro/macro feat is impressive if you've never seen the game before. This is unlike games like first person shooters where impressive feats can be universally understood. edit: some bad typos | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
Also just because Broodwar is on the decline doesn't mean we should radically overhaul the game. I am no marketing expert but I can imagine that a radical update would only alienate the loyal/hardcore players of the game (and I would say most BW players are hardcore players) while drawing in only a few people because no matter what, a 20 year old RTS that has a very steep learning curve won't be very popular nowadays. Sure, it might bring back some former casual players who left because they were disillusioned with the stagnant meta and lack of viable compositions/play styles. That said, this population is probably much smaller than the existing pool of players and not only that but there are more games competing against Brood War nowadays than in the past so most of the former casual players would probably not be interested enough to return to playing this game (especially since Brood War, whether or not there is a major update, is not geared towards casual players). In theory, it probably is possible to improve balance by making guardians have 4 more hp or tanks build .342 seconds slower of whatever. Jealous makes a good point that this is almost impossible to show and even if it actually did improve balance, I can say this confidently that if you told me that the guardian would now have 163 hp and tanks would build 0.23 seconds slower, I would be disappointed and I bet if I did a poll, many others would be too. Balance updates occurred near the beginning of Brood War but for many years, Brood War players have been pretty averse to changing balance. No game can last forever. Of course, that doesn't mean we should just let the game die. I think introducing 2v2 ladder/matchmaking system would help the scene as there are many 2v2 players who might feel like they are not receiving enough attention. Maybe improve UMS features but I don't play UMS so I don't know what I'm talking about regarding UMS. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 24 2019 15:51 Counc1l wrote: There is a vocal but small contingent of brood war players who believe that the game's survival hinges on fundamental changes to the way in which the game is played. Well, I tend not to agree with this assessment so I want to address it. In the spirit of examining both sides of the discussion, I think this group makes some fair points. Changing the game will create excitement by reshaping what is possible in the game. It also puts a reset on the game's meta and allows people to strategize instead of copying optimized build orders. I encourage anyone who wants to tinker with unit stats and allow brood war players the option to play it and contribute to another "version" of brood war. That is a reasonable point and devising completely new strategies is fun. Nevertheless, I do not think such changes should be forced on all of us, on brood war itself. I want to focus on this for a second. There is no evidence to support that balance changes bring outside people into a game. The only thing that brings new people into a game is publicity, whether it be through advertisement, viral marketing, or word-of-mouth. Additionally, the mentality behind build-orders being boring is because people don't understand what they're talking about half the time. For example, let's say you're a new player and you just want to get factories and make goliaths. You're gonna win some games doing that. But then you lose a bunch and then ask your Terran senpai what can be done better and that person goes "You're not even playing the game right. You need a solid macro-oriented build-order that can get you into the late game, and you need to perfect it by practicing 1,000,000 times." and then rolls out whatever the current meta is. That is a tremendous detriment to new players. I mean, I guess getting smashed x100000000000000 also is, but being TOLD HOW TO PLAY THE GAME takes away from the creativity and joy of winning. And I'll tell you why: if you have a strategy that you really like, and it wins a game, you should do that strategy until you get bored with it. But veteran players get stuck in this mentality that unorthodox plays are bad because they're risky, and tell new people to do these late-game macro builds and the new player has no idea what to look for, and once they get to the late game, they get lost and do a bunch of stupid shit, lose and get mad because they felt like they were "playing good" because they did all the build order parts right, but then got annihilated. Ultimately, what you end up with is a bitter player who hates the other races (lol I'm thinking of a very specific person right now), hates playing StarCraft but continues to play, has no idea what to do in the late game, and has to quit because they're not enjoying the game at all. That's why I always encourage people to branch out, try new strategies that they haven't considered, play different game modes, like 2v2, 3v3, play on Fastest, play on BGH, play UMS games like Desert Strike, and just do fun stuff with friends. Additionally, in 1v1, there are many ways to play. For example, in TvZ, you don't have to go +1 5 rax. Personally, I'd recommend working up to it at some point, but one could still go like 2 rax + tank on one base, or can go straight mech, or bunker rush every game, go 3 port wraith, go 1-base nuke, or whatever. There's options. As long as the player is having fun. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
Some changes aren’t going to keep people sticking around anyway, and may risk alienating the folks who already exist What I do feel is 100% missing and is absolutely not going to actually affect the game itself is an in-client central resource for those wanting to learn how to play competitive 1v1 A lot of the game is bugs that became features they didn’t change, but to actually find them all yourself intuitively is not going to happen. Perhaps including a whole bunch of stuff in a central place in the client, sort of a ‘melee boot camp’ kind of thing with tutorials and examples and a chance to play challenge scenarios yourself to learn would help a lot. You could do it in a UMS map but it becomes a matter of the players you want to find it actually finding it. All the micro tricks, stacking mutas or corsairs, building certain walls and sim cities that aren’t intuitive at all, etc. Maybe you could tie this in with some basic standard build orders too. I think the catchment area for growth is hardcore RTS fans, or people who like competitive 1v1 games and want a new challenge, but the knowledge barrier is huge and that task is made harder by that knowledge being spread all over the place. Even something as simple as walling an FFE can be wonky, in SC2 I can look at something and go ‘that’s a wall’, in BW not quite that simple. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1397 Posts
On June 23 2019 08:52 Dazed. wrote: I literally had eight real life friends who were heavily into broodwar at one point, every single one of them quit citing a stale map pool and meta as the reason. I've seen dozens of players come and go for the same reason. This is nonsense, honestly. Its not a debate. You either reform and possibly the game has new life breathed into it, or the game dies in a few years but peters on like a wraith for a while. We are currently in a state of no growth for players, snail like paced growth in the meta, using a decade+ old map pool, all the famous and well liked players are nearing their 30s, and are walking with severe injuries that may knock them out of the game entirely. The onus is on us to argue against the status quo? You'd have to be pretty blind not to see that broodwars scene isnt in a good place. The status quo is death, and we can always play older patches if we walk into a disaster, or patch out disasters anyway. Change or die. uh no, maybe composition wise and mappool you have a point, but meta has not been "stale" Theres more changes to meta now than for 7-8 years before. Theres new builds coming out all the time, new adaptions to current meta. 2012-2015 before flash had terran on that undominant spot and labelled as a joke race, and now flash and his new revolutionary builds are changing meta every time he plays. few recent examples: TvZ: Mech play became once again standard part of terran play in regular maps when it was thought out to be only viable on selective maps, 1010 fast gas builds are part of terran arsenal, 2/3 port wraith are coming back with new optimizations, Soma has been showing that 2h plays can pressure top terrans more than 3h builds, and aggressive 2h builds are a very viable thing. Theres also the whole mech switch before meta for while before switching to neo sk and then battlecruiser based SK recently, if you want to argue about unit compositions/gameflow being stale TvP The new bunker expand completely eclipsed other macro terran openers from before as the new gold standard due to relevance of fast nexus and speed shuttle play. Bunker expand into academy armory or vult 1fact1port or 2fact openers are the meta for tvp, when previously it was just 2 marine double and FD, and new variants of biomech timings coming out. and thats just for terran side alone. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On June 23 2019 12:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I played sc2 for years and the games issue wasnt the revolving meta, it was fundamental design issues from the jump. Anyone whos played sc2 extensively will tell you the same. and bw would be lucky to get sc2s numbers outside of korea. the population is so tiny on the ladder i know familiar faces at my mmr, its just me and a few people pinging around.Well plenty quit SC2 and that game was changing all the time.The expansions were literally seperate games. But anyway, blizzard has agreed to patch Warcraft 3 balance. So we will see if it makes any difference to an old games playerbase long term. My guess is it won't make a meaningful difference. On June 24 2019 19:21 jinjin5000 wrote: This mech crap your referring to began in 2010, on identical maps to what we play now, has already largely been eclipsed, and were still playing around the same fundamentals. I mean fuck your glorious tvp example is that terrans expand with bunkers now? colour me shocked thats been going on for almost ten years now. Its more common, and? Not exactly surprising that the game will have faster macro openings if we play the exact same maps forever and ever. Minor efficiency improvements are not conducive to creativity or actual meta shifts. Its trivial. Only a fanatic would think something trivial like that is substantial, and thats why the bw population is so tiny. Only fanatics are left. And most of these fanatics are still too blind to see they are playing a dead game in a stale meta, stamp their foot and refuse any changes that might maintain the very game they 'love'. uh no, maybe composition wise and mappool you have a point, but meta has not been "stale" Theres more changes to meta now than for 7-8 years before. Theres new builds coming out all the time, new adaptions to current meta. 2012-2015 before flash had terran on that undominant spot and labelled as a joke race, and now flash and his new revolutionary builds are changing meta every time he plays. few recent examples: TvZ: Mech play became once again standard part of terran play in regular maps when it was thought out to be only viable on selective maps, 1010 fast gas builds are part of terran arsenal, 2/3 port wraith are coming back with new optimizations, Soma has been showing that 2h plays can pressure top terrans more than 3h builds, and aggressive 2h builds are a very viable thing. Theres also the whole mech switch before meta for while before switching to neo sk and then battlecruiser based SK recently, if you want to argue about unit compositions/gameflow being stale TvP The new bunker expand completely eclipsed other macro terran openers from before as the new gold standard due to relevance of fast nexus and speed shuttle play. Bunker expand into academy armory or vult 1fact1port or 2fact openers are the meta for tvp, when previously it was just 2 marine double and FD, and new variants of biomech timings coming out. and thats just for terran side alone. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1397 Posts
On June 25 2019 06:37 Dazed. wrote: This mech crap your referring to began in 2010, on identical maps to what we play now, has already largely been eclipsed, and were still playing around the same fundamentals. I mean fuck your glorious tvp example is that terrans expand with bunkers now? colour me shocked thats been going on for almost ten years now. Its more common, and? Not exactly surprising that the game will have faster macro openings if we play the exact same maps forever and ever. Minor efficiency improvements are not conducive to creativity or actual meta shifts. Its trivial. Only a fanatic would think something trivial like that is substantial, and thats why the bw population is so tiny. Only fanatics are left. And most of these fanatics are still too blind to see they are playing a dead game in a stale meta, stamp their foot and refuse any changes that might maintain the very game they 'love'. Yea i knew i shouldnt have bothered responding when it was obvious you were clueless. Bunker fe is tech based factort expand that changes how tvp early game plays out with putting the siege upgrade expenditure into other upgrades to shift more diverse range of plays to terran, not a macro based build like rax fe or another macro opener When you dont even know these major meta shifts and claim meta is stale, just proves that you are speaking out of your ass | ||
|
AntiHack
Switzerland553 Posts
What sc2 ppl don't and probably can't understand is that the fans of a 21 years old esport are used to think in the long run. Sc2 basically came out with LOTV few years ago but taking into account major patches with units, spells, buildings addition and changes so the game basically just released. All the excitement and the casual friendliness of those "balance" changes only works till the company is willing to invest millions of dollars in it while the developers team can mess around with balance unpunished because there's no competition in the RTS genre, placing sc2 in a unique spot in gaming history* where developers can mess with a game not affecting the game popularity that much due to a lack of competition. *A similar situation happened with WoW because all the other MMO where pretty bad to compete with it but the complete death of the RTS genre is in a completely different order of magnitude. | ||
|
AntiHack
Switzerland553 Posts
On June 24 2019 18:54 Wombat_NI wrote: I feel the genre of RTS isn’t super popular anyway, and BW is bloody difficult to play Some changes aren’t going to keep people sticking around anyway, and may risk alienating the folks who already exist What I do feel is 100% missing and is absolutely not going to actually affect the game itself is an in-client central resource for those wanting to learn how to play competitive 1v1 A lot of the game is bugs that became features they didn’t change, but to actually find them all yourself intuitively is not going to happen. Perhaps including a whole bunch of stuff in a central place in the client, sort of a ‘melee boot camp’ kind of thing with tutorials and examples and a chance to play challenge scenarios yourself to learn would help a lot. You could do it in a UMS map but it becomes a matter of the players you want to find it actually finding it. All the micro tricks, stacking mutas or corsairs, building certain walls and sim cities that aren’t intuitive at all, etc. Maybe you could tie this in with some basic standard build orders too. I think the catchment area for growth is hardcore RTS fans, or people who like competitive 1v1 games and want a new challenge, but the knowledge barrier is huge and that task is made harder by that knowledge being spread all over the place. Even something as simple as walling an FFE can be wonky, in SC2 I can look at something and go ‘that’s a wall’, in BW not quite that simple. Knowledge makes the game deeper and adds to the value of learning it, but maybe I have a Korean mindset. It's true that the guilds where the source of knowledge back in the days and that nowadays people tend to find informations by themselves on social media. That's why a guild system and a comfortable, warm and attractive chat channels environmrnt are so important for this game. This is Starcraft Classic, the social aspect should be a huge and solid pillar of the game. EDIT: Hopefully after Carbot release the team will work on sprites for us to personalise the *Personal* channel (that doesn't even exist anymore), and the *Guild* channels (that only existed thx to bots). I mean, even just reusing Carbot assets and maybe just changing the size might be a great start for the idea of housing mentioned above. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On June 25 2019 22:10 AntiHack wrote: Knowledge makes the game deeper and adds to the value of learning it, but maybe I have a Korean mindset. It's true that the guilds where the source of knowledge back in the days and that nowadays people tend to find informations by themselves on social media. That's why a guild system and a comfortable, warm and attractive chat channels environmrnt are so important for this game. This is Starcraft Classic, the social aspect should be a huge and solid pillar of the game. EDIT: Hopefully after Carbot release the team will work on sprites for us to personalise the *Personal* channel (that doesn't even exist anymore), and the *Guild* channels (that only existed thx to bots). I mean, even just reusing Carbot assets and maybe just changing the size might be a great start for the idea of housing mentioned above. Unless you mean something I'm not aware of, "personal" channels still exist. You mean channels you can meet in with your friends that are not the main channels, right? Those are still there. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
On June 25 2019 06:37 Dazed. wrote: This mech crap your referring to began in 2010, on identical maps to what we play now, has already largely been eclipsed, and were still playing around the same fundamentals. I mean fuck your glorious tvp example is that terrans expand with bunkers now? colour me shocked thats been going on for almost ten years now. Its more common, and? Not exactly surprising that the game will have faster macro openings if we play the exact same maps forever and ever. Minor efficiency improvements are not conducive to creativity or actual meta shifts. Its trivial. Only a fanatic would think something trivial like that is substantial, and thats why the bw population is so tiny. Only fanatics are left. And most of these fanatics are still too blind to see they are playing a dead game in a stale meta, stamp their foot and refuse any changes that might maintain the very game they 'love'. The what are YOU still doing here? You think anyone wants to hear you complain about the same thing with the same subjective points and denials for the umpteenth time? Why do you stay if all it makes you do is cry on forums? | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada758 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
|
AntiHack
Switzerland553 Posts
On June 25 2019 23:40 Jealous wrote: Unless you mean something I'm not aware of, "personal" channels still exist. You mean channels you can meet in with your friends that are not the main channels, right? Those are still there. In 1.16 You could type your name as a channel and it automatically turned you admin. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Rain
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Rush
Kung Fu Cup
PiGosaur Monday
GSL Code S
Cure vs sOs
Reynor vs Solar
GSL Code S
Maru vs TriGGeR
Rogue vs NightMare
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
