On July 28 2017 01:01 MymSlorm wrote: i would add that SC2 Skill ceiling isn't that high because of MBS, unlimited unit selection, very intelligent units, smartcasting, etc. which give us more randomize results. In broodwar you have to train hard, and be very good at your mechanics to have good macro, you have to train a lot to have great micro skills, and so on in order to get the edge over your opponent, it's what separates casuals, from experienced players, or amateurs from professionals, while in SC2 even a novice player can have decent macro or micro thanks to those automatic features to macro and micro
But this simply wrong on so many levels, unless you suddenly redefine a novice as high master/gm player. I recently played at ~5k mmr and in now way did I ever saw a game where somebody came close to player perfect.
Also lol at the argument that any C lvl player can have perfect macro games. Even most of the top pro's in the current scene can't, and that includes most ex-kespa players. And I don't even know how many pros had "perfect games" on multiple occasions.
I don't think MBS or unlimited unit selection or smartcasting is synonymous with "low skill ceiling" in RTS at all, BW would still be rly hard with these and the skill ceiling is never purely mechanical imo in a good RTS. In SC2 I guess if you play Z, there is a high mechanical skill ceiling there. It's probably harder to manage your queens and production than it is in bw in a mechanical way, but not at all in a decision making way. It depends on the rest of the parameters, if the micro and macro is complex you'd still have a high skill ceiling with more efficient controls. I played P in SC2 (wol), it's true that the mechanical (and decision making) skill ceiling was pretty low, both macro and micro (way too low to keep my interest). But it seemed different for Z? (mechanical skill ceiling higher for macro, lot higher than P however rather dumb too so I mostly didn't want to play Z at all lol, tedious) anyway I don't feel like MBS or unlimited selection or smartcasting is bad, for example with smartcasting, look at how units move and how templars cast (everything kinda instantaneous and fluid). Imagine playing bw with smartcasting, you'd still want to be careful and measured and accurate with your storming, more than in SC2, and the skill ceiling would still be high imo. So basically, I think if the base mechanics of the game are good (give depth, etc), then making controls more efficient doesn't hurt a rts.
On July 27 2017 16:50 ionONE wrote: My first starcraft game was sc2, saw it advertised in late 2009. I was always a huge RTS fan, starting with dune 2000 and Age of Empires in 1998 but somehow didnt know starcraft/broodwar was a thing ...
Damn, why didn't you watch Brood War on TV? It was there, along with CS 1.6, Fifa, Warcraft 3 and the like.
Chances to watch esports back then in Germany were very slim, the only TV show I can think of that might have covered something like this was GIGA.
GIGA was a channel, not a show. And yes, they broadcasted games every week. Popular ones such as Warcraft 3 obviously had more games shown (Wednesday, Friday, often Saturday). There was also GIGA 2 but since it was only a stream and I had a crappy connection at the time, I never bothered.
Wasn't GIGA just a weekly show on NBC Europe initially?
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
TBH I totally agree with you. That is why the old school BW gamers freaked out when they started doing pressure to implement H.O.T.K.E.Y.S. influencing the game to be more like SC2.
On July 27 2017 02:54 letian wrote: And after some time it was absolutely clear that it was objectively less fun to watch and to play.
That statement is not objective at all.
There are people that like sc2 more than bw, maybe not the elitists but the majority are casual players anyway.
It is objective because ppl who you claim enjoy SC2 more are the ones who didn't play BW enough to understand it. This is like comparing chess to checkers and there have been numerous posts why, covering both the game mechanics and social aspects. There are plenty of activities in the world that are undeservedly more popular just because they are more accessible for average Joe. Have you asked yourself what if BW had been remastered and received all that Blizzard sponsorship money SC2 did in the first place? I bet my pants there would be nothing to argue about right now.
I guess Stats and INnoVation (who openly admitted they enjoy sc2 more) just didn't play BW enough to understand it.
Outliers, who cares about outliers. Just look at the number of BW streamers in the right column if you want to know the opinion of the vast majority of RTS pros.
People need to stop bashing each other's games and just provide their own subjective opinion about why they personally stopped playing and stop trying to bring forth a unifying theory why sc2 is not as popular as it could be.
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
Lol "educate" BW fans, you are nothing but toxic in the BW forums, maybe just go and post in your beloved game forum, I dont think that SC2 is dead or something like that, but it failed big about being the succesor of BW, anyway, waiting for you in another BW forum thread to "educate" BW fans.
On July 27 2017 16:50 ionONE wrote: My first starcraft game was sc2, saw it advertised in late 2009. I was always a huge RTS fan, starting with dune 2000 and Age of Empires in 1998 but somehow didnt know starcraft/broodwar was a thing ...
Damn, why didn't you watch Brood War on TV? It was there, along with CS 1.6, Fifa, Warcraft 3 and the like.
Chances to watch esports back then in Germany were very slim, the only TV show I can think of that might have covered something like this was GIGA.
GIGA was a channel, not a show. And yes, they broadcasted games every week. Popular ones such as Warcraft 3 obviously had more games shown (Wednesday, Friday, often Saturday). There was also GIGA 2 but since it was only a stream and I had a crappy connection at the time, I never bothered.
Wasn't GIGA just a weekly show on NBC Europe initially?
Initially, it was only a segment. But nevertheless, it's not like it was that short (5 hours every day).
Also, I found a video of Grand Slam III in 2004, live from the Games Convention. Games: Need for Speed: Underground, BW (Mondragon vs Hexer[pG] btw), FIFA 2004, Warcraft 3 TFT, Counterstrike 1.6 and UT 2004.
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
Lol "educate" BW fans, you are nothing but toxic in the BW forums, maybe just go and post in your beloved game forum, I dont think that SC2 is dead or something like that, but it failed big about being the succesor of BW, anyway, waiting for you in another BW forum thread to "educate" BW fans.
But since most BW players don't care to venture into SC2 forums, how would we ever hear the wise regurgitations of opisska if he didn't descend from his high horse to deliver them to us personally? How would he ever have the opportunity to educate us on why our time-tested opinion that the game is inferior is wrong? Sorry, your argument makes no sense here ):
On July 27 2017 20:48 Endymion wrote: similar to the arguments against allowing hotkey rebinding in bw, i just don't think that there was enough mechanical stress in the game, so every single game above a certain level started becoming exactly the same game. what i mean is, since it was so easy to macro perfectly like flash, if you took every terran above like C- on iccup or F on fish and put them on sc2, they would never miss a single step with macro, scvs, depots, mules, etc. so every game was mechanically playing like flash, which is cool for a while maybe, but it gets boring after a while since there is no variation between players. in broodwar the game is so difficult mechanically that there's a "scarcity of mechanical skill," and players actively have to make the decision to either macro or micro more, and they choose whatever avenue is more effective on a w/l% for them personally, since it wasn't a cut and dry decision most of the time. what this results in for pro players is you get players like jaedong and julyzerg who both have very different playstyles, both of which are still effective at a pro level, given their different outlook on the game and their different idiosyncratic skillsets.
at a GM or pro level it sucks even more because literally all of your time better be spent studying strats, because your mechanical skill at the game is irrelevant since everyone is a mechanical god past GM. it also means that literally every player is the same and they're all doing the same strats, unless they're playing at a distinct disadvantage or doing something stupid. So imo, it hurts ALL aspects of the scene despite being intended to help the new players.
This is just not true at all...even the best pros miss macro steps in SC2. Where do you get the idea that everyone could easily master SC2 mechanically? It's complete bullshit. And pros have many distinct playstyles. Bly is not Scarlett who is not Nerchio who is not Elazer. All foreign zergs, all different playstyles.
What he says is not true but he has a point. Obv in sc2 there are huge differences in terms of macro (Inno's macro for example is much better than Gumiho's) but ONLY if there's a lot of action happening on the map and the players have to divide their attention/apm on multiple things. When there's nothing happening on the map pretty much all good players have the same macro and even mid-master players can hit the same timings as top pros.
I personally prefer this aspect about sc2. You don't get automatically ahead by having good mscro and instead you have to "force" macro mistakes out of your opponent to get a lead. SC2 is a lot more interactive in that way.
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
Lol "educate" BW fans, you are nothing but toxic in the BW forums, maybe just go and post in your beloved game forum, I dont think that SC2 is dead or something like that, but it failed big about being the succesor of BW, anyway, waiting for you in another BW forum thread to "educate" BW fans.
But since most BW players don't care to venture into SC2 forums, how would we ever hear the wise regurgitations of opisska if he didn't descend from his high horse to deliver them to us personally? How would he ever have the opportunity to educate us on why our time-tested opinion that the game is inferior is wrong? Sorry, your argument makes no sense here ):
He never said that the opinion that sc2 is inferior is wrong. He just said it's not a fact - which is a fact
On July 27 2017 16:50 ionONE wrote: My first starcraft game was sc2, saw it advertised in late 2009. I was always a huge RTS fan, starting with dune 2000 and Age of Empires in 1998 but somehow didnt know starcraft/broodwar was a thing ...
Damn, why didn't you watch Brood War on TV? It was there, along with CS 1.6, Fifa, Warcraft 3 and the like.
Chances to watch esports back then in Germany were very slim, the only TV show I can think of that might have covered something like this was GIGA.
GIGA was a channel, not a show. And yes, they broadcasted games every week. Popular ones such as Warcraft 3 obviously had more games shown (Wednesday, Friday, often Saturday). There was also GIGA 2 but since it was only a stream and I had a crappy connection at the time, I never bothered.
Wasn't GIGA just a weekly show on NBC Europe initially?
Initially, it was only a segment. But nevertheless, it's not like it was that short (5 hours every day).
Also, I found a video of Grand Slam III in 2004, live from the Games Convention. Games: Need for Speed: Underground, BW (Mondragon vs Hexer[pG] btw), FIFA 2004, Warcraft 3 TFT, Counterstrike 1.6 and UT 2004.
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
Lol "educate" BW fans, you are nothing but toxic in the BW forums, maybe just go and post in your beloved game forum, I dont think that SC2 is dead or something like that, but it failed big about being the succesor of BW, anyway, waiting for you in another BW forum thread to "educate" BW fans.
Oh please let him educate us with his clearly superior intellect. We here are simply too narrow-minded and too into nostalgia to see past our hatred for SC2.
On July 27 2017 20:48 Endymion wrote: similar to the arguments against allowing hotkey rebinding in bw, i just don't think that there was enough mechanical stress in the game, so every single game above a certain level started becoming exactly the same game. what i mean is, since it was so easy to macro perfectly like flash, if you took every terran above like C- on iccup or F on fish and put them on sc2, they would never miss a single step with macro, scvs, depots, mules, etc. so every game was mechanically playing like flash, which is cool for a while maybe, but it gets boring after a while since there is no variation between players. in broodwar the game is so difficult mechanically that there's a "scarcity of mechanical skill," and players actively have to make the decision to either macro or micro more, and they choose whatever avenue is more effective on a w/l% for them personally, since it wasn't a cut and dry decision most of the time. what this results in for pro players is you get players like jaedong and julyzerg who both have very different playstyles, both of which are still effective at a pro level, given their different outlook on the game and their different idiosyncratic skillsets.
at a GM or pro level it sucks even more because literally all of your time better be spent studying strats, because your mechanical skill at the game is irrelevant since everyone is a mechanical god past GM. it also means that literally every player is the same and they're all doing the same strats, unless they're playing at a distinct disadvantage or doing something stupid. So imo, it hurts ALL aspects of the scene despite being intended to help the new players.
This is just not true at all...even the best pros miss macro steps in SC2. Where do you get the idea that everyone could easily master SC2 mechanically? It's complete bullshit. And pros have many distinct playstyles. Bly is not Scarlett who is not Nerchio who is not Elazer. All foreign zergs, all different playstyles.
What he says is not true but he has a point. Obv in sc2 there are huge differences in terms of macro (Inno's macro for example is much better than Gumiho's) but ONLY if there's a lot of action happening on the map and the players have to divide their attention/apm on multiple things. When there's nothing happening on the map pretty much all good players have the same macro and even mid-master players can hit the same timings as top pros.
I personally prefer this aspect about sc2. You don't get automatically ahead by having good mscro and instead you have to "force" macro mistakes out of your opponent to get a lead. SC2 is a lot more interactive in that way.
I like how some people turn an absolute clear bad aspect of a game into something which is supposedly making it a better game.
On July 27 2017 02:54 letian wrote: And after some time it was absolutely clear that it was objectively less fun to watch and to play.
That statement is not objective at all.
There are people that like sc2 more than bw, maybe not the elitists but the majority are casual players anyway.
It is objective because ppl who you claim enjoy SC2 more are the ones who didn't play BW enough to understand it. This is like comparing chess to checkers and there have been numerous posts why, covering both the game mechanics and social aspects. There are plenty of activities in the world that are undeservedly more popular just because they are more accessible for average Joe. Have you asked yourself what if BW had been remastered and received all that Blizzard sponsorship money SC2 did in the first place? I bet my pants there would be nothing to argue about right now.
I guess Stats and INnoVation (who openly admitted they enjoy sc2 more) just didn't play BW enough to understand it.
Outliers, who cares about outliers. Just look at the number of BW streamers in the right column if you want to know the opinion of the vast majority of RTS pros.
But you can also say that those streamers are outliers and have a large financial intensive to do so, it also has a big selection bias applied to it.
On July 27 2017 14:37 opisska wrote: Nothing "wrecked" SC2. It's a great and fun game, for me much more interesting to both play and watch than broodwar. It doesn't have a huge following, but that's mostly the effect of comparing it with BW which was a unique cultural phenomenon of its time. Most people have since moved on to more social and casual games, that's just where the society is heading. But it still, after 7 years from launch, keeps a dedicated community that can raise 25 thousand bucks in an hour for a tournament. How many games can really say that?
I understand that shitting on SC2 is somewhat of a popular pastime in the BW forum, but all this talk about SC2 being a total failure is delusional. It did pretty good given the circumstances. Thus the "analysis" of ots failure is completely nonsensical.
It was a complete fail, it never could replaced the original and that was its goal, It was so well sold because the BW hype. I remember when you often bashed BW and praise SC2 as the ultimate phenomenon in games history, but here you are in this forum, why?.
I come here to educate BW fans and clear their misunderstanding of SC2. I saw a thread falsely claiming that SC2 is "wrecked" and decided to briefly correct this errrorneous statement. I do not praise SC2 as the ultimate game, it's simply the game I enjoy the most. I have no problem with people enjoying BW more unless they a) shit on my game pointlessly or b) try to influence my gamr to be more like BW. The later has luckily been given up by most years ago, but I just don't see a reason to condone the former.
Lol "educate" BW fans, you are nothing but toxic in the BW forums, maybe just go and post in your beloved game forum, I dont think that SC2 is dead or something like that, but it failed big about being the succesor of BW, anyway, waiting for you in another BW forum thread to "educate" BW fans.
Oh please let him educate us with his clearly superior intellect. We here are simply too narrow-minded and too into nostalgia to see past our hatred for SC2.
On July 27 2017 20:48 Endymion wrote: similar to the arguments against allowing hotkey rebinding in bw, i just don't think that there was enough mechanical stress in the game, so every single game above a certain level started becoming exactly the same game. what i mean is, since it was so easy to macro perfectly like flash, if you took every terran above like C- on iccup or F on fish and put them on sc2, they would never miss a single step with macro, scvs, depots, mules, etc. so every game was mechanically playing like flash, which is cool for a while maybe, but it gets boring after a while since there is no variation between players. in broodwar the game is so difficult mechanically that there's a "scarcity of mechanical skill," and players actively have to make the decision to either macro or micro more, and they choose whatever avenue is more effective on a w/l% for them personally, since it wasn't a cut and dry decision most of the time. what this results in for pro players is you get players like jaedong and julyzerg who both have very different playstyles, both of which are still effective at a pro level, given their different outlook on the game and their different idiosyncratic skillsets.
at a GM or pro level it sucks even more because literally all of your time better be spent studying strats, because your mechanical skill at the game is irrelevant since everyone is a mechanical god past GM. it also means that literally every player is the same and they're all doing the same strats, unless they're playing at a distinct disadvantage or doing something stupid. So imo, it hurts ALL aspects of the scene despite being intended to help the new players.
This is just not true at all...even the best pros miss macro steps in SC2. Where do you get the idea that everyone could easily master SC2 mechanically? It's complete bullshit. And pros have many distinct playstyles. Bly is not Scarlett who is not Nerchio who is not Elazer. All foreign zergs, all different playstyles.
What he says is not true but he has a point. Obv in sc2 there are huge differences in terms of macro (Inno's macro for example is much better than Gumiho's) but ONLY if there's a lot of action happening on the map and the players have to divide their attention/apm on multiple things. When there's nothing happening on the map pretty much all good players have the same macro and even mid-master players can hit the same timings as top pros.
I personally prefer this aspect about sc2. You don't get automatically ahead by having good mscro and instead you have to "force" macro mistakes out of your opponent to get a lead. SC2 is a lot more interactive in that way.
I like how some people turn an absolute clear bad aspect of a game into something which is supposedly making it a better game.
You cannot just say something is "clearly bad". That doesn't mean anything. There are pros and cons to any design decision, it just depends on what you want to achieve and what your biggest priorities are.
On July 27 2017 11:11 avilo wrote: Lack of attention and balance patches from developers.
Aka 1.5 yrs of broodlord infestor, 1.5 yrs of swarmhosts, now LOTV which is all-in after all-in, and gimmick after gimmick. 12 worker start and economy had entirely adverse effects on the game.
12 worker start = short games like Command and Conquer + more build order wins/coin flips. Games get underway faster at the expense of you having no fucking clue if your opening build is getting mega hard countered by a proxy or random bullshit build from the opponent. By the time you scout their build and attack or all-in in LOTV it's already to your base with ZERO reaction time. You have to have already countered whatever it is they are doing or you lose.
In WOL/HOTS you had time to scout the all-in, and then another 30-45 seconds to prepare and react to the opponent. This created skill gameplay where the better player always will win. LOTV is not skill gameplay - it's coinflip / bullshit gameplay where a worse player can beat a better player through blind aggression.
To make the above point worse - removing 1500 mineral patches at each base again makes it so whoever blindly suicides units into worker lines and attack, attack, attacks gets the free advantage of expanding regardless if their attacks are stopped and held or not. This is terrible gameplay and allows worse players a chance to beat better players WHICH IS NOT HOW A SKILL GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Now we get to balance patches again. They are non-existent since the game's inception. We have developers that for some reason refuse to fix things like adepts, swarmhosts, 8 armor ultras for almost 1+ yr at a time while these things completely ruin the game and dry up the player base that gets fed up with non-sense being in the game.
As of right now - swarmhosts, ravens, carriers, pylon cannon under the ramp, invincible nydus worms...are just a list of a FEW of the things that should require balance patches and are either ignored since LOTV launch or the devs simply do not care or acknowledge that they are issues at this point.
HOTS games lasted on average 25 minutes to 35 minutes i would say, for a very good macro game between two good players. This allowed viewers to open up a stream, and tune into the game most likely as it is getting underway or already is into the action.
LOTV games last on average 8-15 minutes, and often times end abruptly from the most random bullshit like adepts+WP or 10 workers getting murdered or a huge doom drop. This means a viewer that tunes into the game is already too late to watch the damn game. You open the stream and the game is either already over or a new one just started at the very beginning. The likelihood for you to open a stream and be already in the thick of things is just naturally less likely due to the average gamelength being artificially decreased by Blizzard entertainment. I still do not know why so few people acknowledge this or bring it up.
I remember getting 6000-7000 viewers on my stream during 3 hr swarmhost qualifier games. LONG GAMES BRING IN VIEWERS, SUSTAIN VIEWERS, AND ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO TUNE INTO THE GAMES. WHY DO YOU THINK MOBA GAMES DO SO WELL? MOBA games on average last 25 minute to 45 minutes...JUST LIKE WOL/HOTS GAMES LASTED.
Region locking...this is a droplet of water in the pool compared to LACK OF BALANCE PATCHES/DESIGN patches and LACK OF ITERATION from Blizzard in regards to SC2. Arguments can be made for or against region locking, and peopel can argue what it's impacts had or didn't have from doing or not doing it. At the end of the day it does not matter if the core gameplay of the game we all know and love is dogshit from imbalance like mass infestors or swarmhosts.
The community of SC2, the SJW types, are also responsible for SC2's decline because these fucks out there won't ever acknowledge the issues that SC2 has in any meaningful type of discussion. These are the people on reddit, forums everywhere, even some here on TL - that try to stifle any discussion related to SC2 balance or design and immediately start to spout the:
"It's a perfect balanced game, stop saying stuff is imbalanced, nothing needs to change, our game is great."
No it's not. It's not 2011. It's 2017 and there are currently swarmhosts in the game that entirely negate mech play. There are carriers that have no counter when lategame is reached. There are hydra/bane buffs that pushed Zerg over the edge in the most recent patches. There is 3 rax reaper that has been busted since LOTV launch.
When myself or other people try to bring these things up there's either a vocal amount of people that always say "the game is fine" and don't want to push Blizzard to balance patch.
Meanwhile, LoL is getting a balance patch every 2weeks/month and massive content patches bi-weekly.
Skins were requested 3+ yrs ago by now? I still remember the post Destiny made on the SC2 reddit essentially listing a lot of stuff Blizzard could do to make SC2 grow more. And here we are today, years later finally some things are implemented.
But anyways, there's a lot i'm missing probably. But tbh none of it matters at all other than one thing as i said: BALANCE / DESIGN PATCHES. Until this happens on a consistent basis, SC2 will never grow again, and the game is indeed pretty dead and we'll stay at around the level we're at. Which maybe some people are OK with, but honestly i'd like to SC2 rise again to where it belongs.
what wrecked SC2 was when WoL was released, it was a soulless game with no chat mode, all those B.Net chat features came too late and many people didn't want to buy HotS thinking they were paying for the same game again.
But the real killer was no LAN mode, a lot of tournaments had issues when B.Net would go down, it hurt a lot of communities.
Reading some of the thread i figured out the answer. Way too many and at the same time no reason at all.
People here mentioned a huge list of different ways the game went "wrong", thus, clearly, everyone has their personal reasons to not like the game too much but those are not what went wrong for everyone, or the majority or any significant part of the player base.
There are some objective reasons why the game was not a big commercial hit, but actual gameplay flaws? Just a big list personal reasons. "game is too hard" and "game is too easy" at the same time.
Seriously, you can point out a big list of flaws in Sc2 and BW, some of them may not be too subjective. But in the end what is important for one is not for another. What ruined the game for you may be good for someone else.
And for god sake, no game is superior. This is a very bold claim. Bad pathfinding in BW is a terrible problem for some people, but others enjoy it. It comes with an obvious objective flaw and subtle objective qualities. In the end, pick whatever floats your boat, the final qualitative judgement is purely subjective.
So, my most important point is that some guys are mixing up the lack of commercial success with their own reasons to dislike (or like) the game.
On July 28 2017 06:55 Superbanana wrote: Bad pathfinding in BW is a terrible problem for some people, but others enjoy it.
I don't think anyone "enjoys" bad pathfinding. It's just that there is always some arbitrary level of mechanical demand that must be met, and BWs seems quite optimal for a highly competitive game.
In basketball, it is the laws of physics that every player has to contend with. We could design smart-balls with neural nets and thrusters that self-correct so your passes always get to the intended target. The fact that we don't want that doesn't mean players "enjoy it" when their passes get intercepted.
EPT
