|
imo sc2 had a problem where it tried to model brood war's pacing. this has no business in its entirely different engine.
if you look at the time it takes to assemble a squad of units that "get in each other's way" or "have trouble with terrain" you will see that in starcraft 2 that time has been stretched greatly.
|
@Jealous: It seems to me that more than a half of your problems with SC2 are quite silly. Why would you care that something is "shoved down your throat", why would you care so much about how something is called and categorized? I really don't want to argue about what should you like or dislike in the game, but that's not really even what you talk about most in your post ... maybe if you just tried to ignore the marketing for a bit, you'd realize that there isn't that much of a problem after all?
|
Japan11286 Posts
I know this is between you two, but I think (in a way) it's kind of comical to not care about something when that something is being shoved down your throat. Unless maybe if you lack a properly functioning nervous system or don't have a need to breath -which means you're dead.
|
@opisska just imagine they announce a starcraft 3, shut down the SC2 scene entirely while saying "good things have to come to an end", starcraft 3 ends up being some kind of dumbed down version of a moba with no micro and no macro in it (but huge easy to cast nukes that is repetedly shouted to be extreme extreme annihilation by the star-lead-designer coming from Skylanders) and you don't like it at all as you know the previous game was tons better and takes a lot more skill, they pull people with this marketing while calling starcraft 3 just "starcraft" constantly as if it was what starcraft always was and most importantly what it now exclusively is, and stop supporting SC2 entirely by letting the ladder be overcome by hackers and ppl move to private servers dividing and hiding the remaining community from newcomers.
|
|
|
On August 01 2017 17:44 Yikes64 wrote:
One thing I haven't really seen people mention is the fact that Starcraft 2 released with the biggest cashgrab expansion schedule. 3 Expansions all for around the price of a full game. This was made even worse by the fact that games with free2play systems like League of Legends were being released and becoming popular. Why would the average kid with very little spare money buy a game like Starcraft 2 when they can just play League of Legends for free and so can their friends (not to mention lesser system requirements). Brood War was essentially free in Korea considering you only needed to pay for your time at the PC, whereas Starcraft 2 wasn't. I feel like this is one of the biggest reason that after the initial surge the game fell off. It makes sense to buy a game when all your friends are playing it and it's brand new but when most of your friends have left the game it makes it harder to justify buying the game. It makes even less sense to buy a game when you know you're going to have to pay the same amount again in about a year's time just to continue playing online.
I feel like the poor timing of Starcraft 2 coming out as the free2play model was becoming popular really hurt the game's potential to keep people playing on and off or bring in people as the games lifespan continued.
Honestly there are countless reasons Starcraft 2 is not that popular and the Starcraft 2 community seems to be very insecure about it's popularity because it was once the top dog. It's not really something I care about these days but it's definitely a shame that things weren't done differently to give Starcraft 2 the best chance possible.
Cash grab? They were 2 huge expansions 2 years apart each.
I think BW was more of a cash grab since they rushed it out 8 months after Vanilla Starcraft.
But yeah, I could definetely see the argument it had an outdated business model, but those plans were set and F2P became a thing at the last minute (given SC2's long development cycle)
|
On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens.
Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile.
Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day?
|
On August 01 2017 23:26 QzYSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens. Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile. Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day?
I feel that the second part can be directed equally to both SC2 and BW. Also do you have some more evidence as to how the game lets worse players win with the better ones? Part of this can be explained by smurfing, off-racing etc
|
On August 01 2017 15:18 opisska wrote:
Looking through this thread, I am still not sure what you guys wanted from SC2. It seems that every small deviation the creators from BW could have done would have ended up criticized anyway. But some people also dislike the graphics, claiming that BW's superior, so a 3D-remake of faithfull BW gameplay also wouldn't be universally welcome. So what should SC2 have been? I get that you like BW, but the game didn't magically cease to exist upon SC2's release, so why are you so upset that SC2 is different?
Golden rule of creating things is that people can tell you what they think is wrong but not how to fix it. The person who fixes something becomes the creator. So your question doesn't make sense.
I also think it's a mistake trying to get cohesion out of the opinions of a few dozen people on the internet. Of course nothing is going to be universally liked.
What did people want from SC2? A game they would enjoy. A game that would thrive on its own and create its own magic. There isn't a much more specific qualification you can give for a group of people. People who felt hurt by the hybrid league and the forced transition of players from SC1 to SC2 were always going to be 100x harder to impress. There is an aspect of politics to BW -> SC2 that is at least as important as what the actual game was. Lots of people wanted to see SC2 fail hard because it seemed to ruin something that was good, and it hurts to see that kind of action rewarded with success. It offends a basic sense of justice. So any little thing that's wrong with SC2 is magnified ten fold, because it wasn't coexisting with BW, it was replacing it. There's 100 things wrong with BW too, but BW wasn't replacing anything. We don't really care that units freeze, or there's major stack glitches on ramps, or valks stop firing at higher supplies, zealots will randomly speed boost and tanks will gain cloak from arbiters in strange situations. Beyond bugs, people have always found PvP and ZvZ to be too influenced by build-order choice, ZvZ to be a little too repetitive (although some rare people get very interested in the finer details of ZvZ), and the overall trend of T>Z>P>T to be worth criticizing the entire lifetime of BW even though they love the game.
Basically SC2 should have been a game without those politics. It shouldn't have consumed the existing professional player base. It is not that any particular flaw in SC2 makes it a game not worth playing, it's not that BW is a perfect game, it's that a lot of people can't handle the dissonance of supporting a company that has done some things they really didn't like. So we all want to say "See, look how you tried to contrive an esport, look how bad it is compared to what we had before." Only we are an incredible minority, a few dozen, generously a few hundred, people on an internet forum who don't matter. The dissonance those politics created has had a completely negligible effect from Blizzard's perspective. And that frustrates us all the more 
|
On August 01 2017 23:28 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 23:26 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens. Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile. Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day? I feel that the second part can be directed equally to both SC2 and BW. Also do you have some more evidence as to how the game lets worse players win with the better ones? Part of this can be explained by smurfing, off-racing etc
how about the fact we don't have any consistent good players? last gsl champion (not even long ago) gumiho got knocked out ro16 in iem shanghai 1-4. Zest from being gsl champion to losing everything, then coming to HSC suddenly winning it? as i said before my BW knowledge is limited because i didnt play it, but werent Flash, Bisu, jeadong etc. consistent winners for extended periods of times?
|
On August 01 2017 23:39 QzYSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 23:28 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 23:26 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens. Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile. Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day? I feel that the second part can be directed equally to both SC2 and BW. Also do you have some more evidence as to how the game lets worse players win with the better ones? Part of this can be explained by smurfing, off-racing etc how about the fact we don't have any consistent good players? last gsl champion (not even long ago) gumiho got knocked out ro16 in iem shanghai 1-4. as i said before my BW knowledge is limited because i didnt play it, but werent Flash, Bisu, jeadong etc. consistent winners for extended periods of times?
That's simply variance. It happens and also happened in bw. Just to give you an idea about win% this year, i made a blog about this a while ago: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/524740-top-players-and-their-stats-in-2017
Also what about consistency besides the absolute top players? It's true that the gods like Flash and jaedong were more consistent, but does the same appear to be true for the players just below them? I actually think people exaggerate the volatitlity of sc2 a lot, the scene definitely has top players who are rather consistent
|
On July 26 2017 17:47 HaN- wrote:According to HuK, ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hH8ZqXt.png)
I agree with most of HuK's points.
Lack of region locking
WCS in general was a disaster. Back in 2013 the scene's stakeholders were barely consulted or warned about Blizzard's plans before MLG, ESL and GOMTV were abruptly told to change their plans and host the league. We saw plenty of organisational cock-ups and even witnessed MLG leave the SC2 scene behind and NASL go bankrupt due to the effects WCS had on their business models.
The lack of region locking also ensured there would be no non-Korean champions at all. WCS Europe and WCS America pretty much became WCS Korea 2 and WCS Korea 3 respectively taking on the overflow of Code B Koreans that couldn't break GSL, OSL or SSL.
Balance issues
I think the correct term is design issues. While this is a whole 'nother topic that you could write an entire Masters thesis on, I'll just elaborate on a few of these design issues below:
- Corrosive Bile - This Ravager ability does ridiculous damage and makes the unit absurdly broken against structures and immobile units like Siege Tanks that can't dodge the bile in time. It's actually the core reason why Forge Fast Expand is no longer a viable build in LotV and why Mech vs Z sucked for a long time.
- Hydralisk buffs - Hydras were already in a good spot, yet buffing their movement speed, health and attack range has made them absurdly broken in all three matchups.
- 9 Range Lurkers - This one breaks ZvZ to a ridiculous extent. The only way to reliably deal with Lurker contains is to tech all the way to tier 3 and bombard them from range with Brood Lords. Of course, if you're being contained, you're pretty much dead.
- Adepts - It took Blizzard well over a year to give them a shield nerf. They used to have the same effective HP and armor as a Zealot, yet had vastly superior range, mobility and damage potential (while they did less damage, they could more reliably hit their target which made them better than a Zealot in almost all situations) which made Zealots obsolete in the meta.
- Liberators - Look at the numerous range and damage nerfs that came to this unit from LotV's release and tell me they were honestly balanced.
- Dropship harassment - By LotV, dropships have become OP as hell. Medivacs can now pick up and stim to safety in almost every situation, Warp Prisms can drop micro units from a pretty big range, and Overlord buffs now ensure that you can be drop harassed by Zerg from tier 1 with roaches, lings and banes.
- Colossus - They are rarely if ever used in the LotV metagame because they were given a steep 20% damage nerf.
Solo game
Yet there are loads of successful 1v1 fighting games like Super Smash Bros Melee and Street Fighter IV?
Poor story lines
Repetitive events
Lack of rivalries
HuK hit the nail on the head there. Compared to the storylines and rivalries we got back in 2011 and 2012, SC2's been really stale since the switchover to WCS. This could partially be due to Blizzard's inability to build up rivalries and storylines to the same extent that teams and players were previously able to. Or this could be due to the scene's more interesting and controversial players like Naniwa and Destiny being driven out of the scene.
|
On August 01 2017 23:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 23:39 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 23:28 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 23:26 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens. Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile. Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day? I feel that the second part can be directed equally to both SC2 and BW. Also do you have some more evidence as to how the game lets worse players win with the better ones? Part of this can be explained by smurfing, off-racing etc how about the fact we don't have any consistent good players? last gsl champion (not even long ago) gumiho got knocked out ro16 in iem shanghai 1-4. as i said before my BW knowledge is limited because i didnt play it, but werent Flash, Bisu, jeadong etc. consistent winners for extended periods of times? That's simply variance. It happens and also happened in bw. Just to give you an idea about win% this year, i made a blog about this a while ago: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/524740-top-players-and-their-stats-in-2017 Also what about consistency besides the absolute top players? It's true that the gods like Flash and jaedong were more consistent, but does the same appear to be true for the players just below them? I actually think people exaggerate the volatitlity of sc2 a lot, the scene definitely has top players who are rather consistent
I'll add that it's easier to spot consistency in players from outside of Korea, since they never were affected by the KeSPA breakdown and disbanding teams on which Korean players depended a lot.
|
Not quite sure about your point, this is korea only. I am saying that the narrative that sc2 is oh so volatile is made up for the most part. It is true that we had no bonjwa performance, but that's about it.
I would actually be interested in comparing bw to sc2 when we look at the players below god level, if there is a difference at all (so players who would make ro8s and stuff)
|
Your life doesn't have to be decided by marketing. Hell the BW scene is a perfect example of that, with private servers and grassroots tournaments after Blizzard abandoned the game. Why do you care so much for big daddy Blizz acceptance? I think what BW had after SC2 was still pretty cool and the worst aspect of the scene has been the constant bitching about SC2.
If SC3 comes out and I don't like, I will derive inspiration for what to do next from what BW did, except for the hate.
|
On August 01 2017 23:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 23:39 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 23:28 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 23:26 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 22:38 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 22:15 QzYSc2 wrote:On August 01 2017 21:42 aQuaSC wrote:On August 01 2017 20:42 QzYSc2 wrote:
You can outmicro, outmacro and outmultitask, have the better 'strategy' and still lose in this game. Isn't this called a 'comeback potential'? Of course given that player's perspective of being ultimately better and doing everything correctly is objectively correct and not illusion. I remember Polt having a lot of success in situations that seemed very dire, but due to Terran mechanics he could hold on. its a very dumb comeback though. if i got outplayed by a better player for 60 mins and caught him not paying attention for 2 secs wouldnt feel very rewarding winning either. The damage on units are just way too high in this game. wc3 didnt have this, and i didnt play bw, but judging by watching the remastered tournament this wasnt the case either. 1 battle didnt decide the game, but multiple ones slowly decided the winner. I feel like we're watching different SC2 versions, I'm pretty sure that we're far from the era of one big battle for the win with LotV. The games are much more spread out and last longer, with more opportunities for players to build. Don't BW matches also end over 1 battle that decides the game? At the very end? Also storm damage in BW is ridiculous. The only thing that balances the Reaver are unintentional bugs. Also Lurkers, with hold position glitch too. I'd like to see a recent SC2 match that is decided in a single engagement. I tend to agree that burst damage in SC2 could be toned down but it's not bad unless you intentionally stack everything or just go in not necessarily caring about how it happens. Why does the game need to be designed around pro matches? (balance is another subject). Im masters and i have lost to platinum players, and taken games off GMs. my point in saying that, is that shouldnt happen as often as it does, the reason being sc2 = extremely volatile. Alot of decisions you have to make are split second, and they are mostly learned by trial and error. Where do you think the majority/casual player base will go if every game they play is build your army for 10 min and lose it in 10 secs because blizzard designed it to be for superhuman computers who play this game 12 hours a day? I feel that the second part can be directed equally to both SC2 and BW. Also do you have some more evidence as to how the game lets worse players win with the better ones? Part of this can be explained by smurfing, off-racing etc how about the fact we don't have any consistent good players? last gsl champion (not even long ago) gumiho got knocked out ro16 in iem shanghai 1-4. as i said before my BW knowledge is limited because i didnt play it, but werent Flash, Bisu, jeadong etc. consistent winners for extended periods of times? That's simply variance. It happens and also happened in bw. Just to give you an idea about win% this year, i made a blog about this a while ago: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/524740-top-players-and-their-stats-in-2017 Also what about consistency besides the absolute top players? It's true that the gods like Flash and jaedong were more consistent, but does the same appear to be true for the players just below them? I actually think people exaggerate the volatitlity of sc2 a lot, the scene definitely has top players who are rather consistent
i dont see the point of bringing up winrates. you consider winrates correlates to consistency? so if you win everything in a tournament going 50-0 then losing everything the next day 0-12 you have about 70% winrate and you're consistent? im sorry for extreme examples but i just dont see what the point is. you can say its simple variances, but my opinion thinks its because of the volatility.
|
On August 01 2017 23:58 opisska wrote:
Your life doesn't have to be decided by marketing. Hell the BW scene is a perfect example of that, with private servers and grassroots tournaments after Blizzard abandoned the game. Why do you care so much for big daddy Blizz acceptance? I think what BW had after SC2 was still pretty cool and the worst aspect of the scene has been the constant bitching about SC2.
If SC3 comes out and I don't like, I will derive inspiration for what to do next from what BW did, except for the hate.
nah life marketing acceptance daddy bitching what are you talking about, I think you don't get it, or maybe you don't care, you decide to just call it "hate", "shut up and play your game" basically, well maybe don't bitch about people having opinions you don't agree with then lol (after asking them no less)
|
Well as you said it's an extreme example and quite unlikely to happen like that. And yes high winrates usually correlate with good performance aka consistency over a decent samplesize.
Well you can have any opinion you want, but the bw community especially tries to paint sc2 as an extreme volatile game when that's not really the case.
|
maybe its exagerated sometimes (?), but at least its a key difference between the two games that describes and explains why we like BW better, I mean DISRUPTORS man lol (being a bandaid to deathballs!), its rather extreme!
|
You don't explain anything though, you just state it as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
